PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


/   ^  BX  9831  .W547  1876 

^^  Unitarian  principles 

confirmed  by  Trinitarian 


Shelf. . 


UNITARIAN  PRINCIPLES 


CONFIRMED  n? 


TRINITARIAN     TESTIMONIES. 


UNITARIAN  6PRINCIPLES 


<:0 


\      >^  COKFinOffD     BY 


TRINITARIAI    TESTIMONIES; 


SELECTIONS    FROM   THE   WORKS   OF   EMINENT   THEOLOGIANS 
BELONGING  TO  ORTHODOX   CHURCHES. 


tillj  Infrobuttorg  anb  Occasional  Remarks. 


BY   JOHN   WILSON, 

AUTBOa   OP    "  SCEIPTDEE  PEOOPS   AND   SCRIPTURAL   ILLUSTRATIONS   OF   DNITARIANISM.' 


EIGHTH    EDITION. 


BOSTON: 
AMERICAN   UNITARIAN   ASSOCIATION. 


M  DCCC  LXXVr. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Cougresa,  in  the  year  1855,  by  IIenrt  A.  Miles,  Se:b«- 
TART  OF  TUE  AMERICAN  UNITARIAN  ASSOCIATION,  In  the  Clork's  Offlce  of  the  District 
Court  of  the  District  of  Massacbusetta. 


c  A  M  u  i{  I  i-n ;  K : 

1>RK8H  OV  JUUN    WILSON    AND   80N,. 


PREFACE. 


About  thirteen  years  ago,  the  author  published  in  England 
a  work  entitled  "  The  Concessions  of  Trinitarians,"  the  object 
of  which  was  to  prove,  from  the  comments  and  criticisms  of 
distinguished  divines  belonging  to  Orthodox  churches,  the 
truth  of  Unitarianism  in  regard  to  the  teachings  of  Scripture 
on  the  subject  of  the  personality  and  relations  of  God,  Christ, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit.  Judging,  shortly  after  his  arrival  in 
this  country  in  1846,  that,  from  the  kind  reception  which  it 
had  met  with,  and  the  small  number  of  copies  on  hand,  the 
book  would  soon  be  out  of  print,  he  thought  it  desirable  to 
republish  it  on  an  enlarged  scale  ;•  and,  accordingly,  since 
tiiat  time,  he  has  devoted  a  considerable  portion  of  his  leisure 
hours  to  the  examination  of  theological  works,  with  the  view 
of  making  such  extracts  as  seemed  best  suited  to  effect  hi3 
design. 

The  "  Concessions  "  consisted  of  a  selection  of  remarks  on 
texts  taken  up  according  to  the  order  in  which  they  occur  in 
the  authorized  version  of  the  Bible,  with  an  Introduction 
of  seventy-six  pages  of  miscellaneous  matter.  Tliat  Intro- 
duction forms  the  basis  of  the  present  volume,  but  has  been 
subjected  to  so  many  changes  in  arrangement,  and  expanded 
80  much  in  its  character  and  plan,  that  it  has  been  deemed 
advisable  to  designate  this  publication  by  a  new  title. 

a* 


Vi  PREFACE. 

It  is  intended  to  print,  at  some  future  time,  the  remain- 
der of  the  work,  comprising  two  or  three  additional  vohimes. 
Each  of  these,  though  related  to  the  others,  and  upholding 
villi  them  one  great  presumptive  argument  for  the  soundness 
of  the  principles  of  interpretation  adopted  by  Unitarians,  will 
embrace  the  consideration  of  a  certain  number  of  the  Sacred 
Books,  and  be  issued  by  itself. 

On  the  mode  in  which  the  writer  has  executed  his  task, 
BO  far  as  it  may  be  judged  of  by  this  volume,  it  is  not  for  him 
to  pronounce  an  opinion ;  but  he  may  be  allowed  to  say,  that, 
while  he  has  sometimes  omitted,  in  his  quotations,  sentenccM 
which  seemed  to  him  irrelevant,  and,  for  want  of  room,  has 
abridged  others  which  he  thought  appropriate,  he  has  been 
careful  to  do  no  injustice  to  his  authors,  and,  to  avoid  even 
the  appearance  of  unfairness,  has  not  unfrequently  length- 
ened his  extracts  beyond  the  measure  required  by  the  object 
he  had  in  view.  In  noticing,  therefore,  errors  or  imperfec- 
tions, it  is  hoped  that  readers  will  attribute  them  to  any 
motive  but  that  of  a  wish,  on  the  part  of  the  transcriber,  lo 
pervert  the  sentiments  of  others  for  the  purpose  of  making 
them  coincide  with  his  own;  feeling  assured,  as  he  does,  that 
no  object,  however  excellent  in  itself,  or  however  well  adapted 
to  advance  the  well-being  of  man,  should  be  promoted  by  any 
means  but  those  of  candor,  simplicity,  justice,  and  directness 
of  aim. 

If  it  be  thought  that  the  author  has  failed  in  the  treatment 
of  ills  subject,  let  the  resi)onsibility  rest  on  himself,  and  not 
on  tlie  cause  which  he  advocates,  or  on  that  section  of  the 
C'hri.-tian  cliunli  of  which  he  is  but  an  individual  niembcr. 
lie  h;is  tried,  ilirougli  tiie  assistance  afforded  him  by  his 
hmhnii    of   a    (liferent    faith,   to   express    and   disseminate 

his  own    (• (ptions   of  biblical   and    Christian    truth  ;    but, 

thini;:li  wriiin;;  as  a  rnitarian,  and  agreeing  essentially  with 


rUEFA.CE.  VU 

the  opinions  entertained  in  general  by  the  Unitarian  body, 
he  does  not  presume  to  act  as  its  rej)resentative.  It  is  the 
glory  of  this  denomination  that  it  recognizes  no  standard  but 
reason  and  Scripture ;  no  leader  but  Christ ;  no  human  au- 
thority as  its  representative,  even  though  he  wei'e  a  Milton 
or  a  Locke,  a  Priestley  or  a  Price,  a  Channing  or  a  Norton. 
With  one  heart  and  one  voice,  its  collective  members  pro- 
claim to  the  world  their  conviction  of  the  great  truth,  that 
(here  is  but  one  God,  the  Father,  and  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ, 
—  two  distinct  and  unequal  persons  or  beings  :  the  first  of 
whom  stands  in  the  relation  of  Parent  of  all  intelligences ; 
the  second,  in  that  of  Son  and  Servant  of  God,  by  whom  he 
was  sent  into  the  world  to  be  the  Teacher,  the  Guide,  and  the 
Saviour  of  mankind. 

As  to  the  precise  rank  in  the  scale  of  creation  to  which 
Christ  belonged.  Unitarians  differ  in  opinion,  as  they  do  in 
their  modes  of  speaking  of  him  ;  and  on  this  point  the  author 
may  be  found  to  disagree  with  many  of  his  brethren  in  this 
country.  It  is  frankly  acknowledged  that  there  are  several 
passnges  in  the  New  Testament  which  seem  to  imply  that 
Jesus  existed  before  his  birth  as  an  intelligence  inferior  only 
to  God ;  but,  without  wishing  to  be  dogmatical  on  a  subject 
which  is  not  altogether  free  from  indistinctness  and  dilficulty, 
the  writer  would  express  his  strong  conviction,  that,  whatever 
Jesus  was  in  a  pre-existent  state,  the  Scriptures  represent  him 
to  have  entered  into  this  world,  to  have  lived  and  labored, 
suffered  and  died,  as  a  proper  human  being,  —  to  have  gone 
about  his  work  of  holy  love  and  heavenly  instruction,  with 
all  the  instincts,  affections,  and  properties  of  humanity  ;  but 
distinguished  above  the  greatest,  the  wisest,  and  the  best  of 
men,  by  his  more  copious  reception  of  the  divine  spirit ;  by 
Ids  higher  acquaintance  with  the  counsels  and  purposes  cf 
Heaven  ;  by  his  more  intimate  communion  and  oneness  with 

at 


Viii  PREFACE. 

God ;  by  his  profoundcr  obedience  and  submission  to  the  will 
of  the  Father ;  and  by  his  brighter,  his  more  express,  manifes- 
tation of  the  love  and  tenderness  of  the  Deity  towards  sinful 
and  suffering  men. 

While  preparing  materials  for  his  work,  the  author  received 
proposals  from  the  American  Unitarian  Association,  offering 
to  adopt  it  as  one  of  their  publications.  It  will,  of  course,  bo 
understood  that  this  is  an  approval  only  of  the  general  spirit 
and  aim  of  the  book,  not  as  an  indorsement  of  all  its  opinions. 
Grateful  for  the  encouragement  thus  extended  to  his  labors, 
he  hopes  that  he  may  have  contributed  something,  by  these 
pages,  to  the  cause  of  liberal  Christianity,  which  the  publica- 
tions of  that  Association  are  so  well  calculated  to  promote. 


22,  ScHoni,  Sthekt,  Boston, 
Oct.  15,  18&&. 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 
Imkoduction 1 

Chapter  I. 

THE    SPIRIT    OF    SECTARIANISM    INCONSISTENT    WITH    THE 
SPIRIT   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 
Bection. 

I.  —  The  Religion  of  Jesus  that  of  Love        26 

II.  —  True  Zeal  accompanied  bj-  a  Spirit  of  Wisdom,  Love,  and 
Humility;  False  Zeal,  by  an  Ignorant,  Uncharitable,  Domi- 
neering, and  Persecnting  Spirit 84 

in.  —  Not  Uniformity  of  Opinion,  but  Piety,  Mutual  Forbearance 
and  Affection,  —  Love  to  God,  Christ,  and  Man,  —  the  Ba- 
ses of  Christian  Union 40 

IV.  —  The  Duty  of  holding  Intercourse  and  Communion  with  Chris- 
tians of  all  Denominations,  and  of  Loving  all  Mankind    .     .      48 
V.  —  The  Nature  and  Evils  of  an  Intolerant  or  a  Persecuting  Spi- 
rit       66 

VI.  —  Faith,  Orthodoxy,  Heresy,  Schism,  and  other  Terms,  often  used 

as  VVatch  words  of  Party  Warfare 67 

(j  1.  Faith  and  Orthodoxy 67 

§  2.  Heresy  and  Schism 71 

VII.  —  The  Constituents  of  the  Christian  Church ;   Wise  and  Good 

Men  in  all  Denominations 76 

VIII.  — Unitarians  distinguished  for  their  Worth,  Piety,  Intelligence, 

and  Learning 86 

f)  1.  Individual  Unitarians 86 

§  2.  Unitarians  in  General ....     100 

IX.  —  Unitarians  entitled  to  the  Christian  Name 108 


z  contents. 

Chapter  IL 

the  preciousness  of  tiikological  tliutfi,  and  the 
unuestkicted  means  of  acquikinq  it. 

6«ctinn.  PaK« 

I.  —  The  iTiiportance  of  Just  Conceptions  of  Ucligion 13S 

II. —  The  Higlit  jind  Duty  of  Free  Inquiry lAl 

III.  —  Dispositions  and  Means  requisite  in  the  Search  after  Truth       .  138 

IV.  —  Hindrances  to  Free  Inquiry,  and  to  the  Spreail  of  Truth       .     .  143 

^  1.  Karly  Prejudices 143 

^  2.   Prostration  of  the  Judgment  to  Autliority 145 

§  3.   Blind  Attacliment  to  Received  Opinions 148 

§  4.  Predilections  for  the  Mysterious 151 

§  5.  Impatience  of  Doubt,  and  Aversion  to  Trouble 153 

^  6.  Party  Sjiirit  and  Personal  Interest 155 

f  7.  The  Speculations  of  Vanity  and  the  Love  of  Singularity      .    .  15tt 

^  ^.  The  Dread  of  Contempt  and  Kidicule 158 

^  9.  The  Influence  of  a  Proud,  Empty,  Sectarian  Criticism     .    .    .  100 

.§  10.  The  Seductions  of  Feeling  and  Imagination 161 

\  11.  Hindrances  in  General 104 

ClIVPlETl  III. 

REASON  AND   REVELATION   THE  ONLY    LEGITIMATE   STANDARDS 
Ok"   RELIGIOUS  DOCTRINE. 

I.  —  Tlie  Obligation  to  use  the  Intellect  in  Matters  nf  Keligion    .     .  115 

II. —  Reason  and  Hevelation  consistent  with  each  other 172 

III. —  Holy  Writ  sufiicicnt,  without  the  Dicta  of  Ciiurches  or  of  Indi- 
viduals, to  be  a  Rule  of  Faith  and  Communion 177 

4  1.  Sufficiency  of  tlie  Sacred  Scriptures 177 

{  2.  Incfficacy  and  Pernicious  Results  of  re(jiiiring  an  .\sst'nt  or  a 

Subscription  to  Creeds  and  .\rticles  <if  Faith I  HO 

IV.  —  Need  of  Revising  the  Authorized  Version  of  tlic   Bible,  and 

Correcting  it  from  a  Pure  Text 185 

V.  —  The  Sacred  Books  not  Ii. spired  I'ecorils,  but  Records  of  Ri-ve- 

latioM 1S8 

5  I.  Tiie   Dogma  of  the  V^erbal  or  the  Plenary  Inspiration  of  the 

Bible  not  supported  by  Evidence 1S8 


CONTENTS.  Xi 

Section.  Pane 
V.  (continued.) 
§  2.  The  Deniiil  of  Verbal  or  of  Plenary  Inspiration  not  a  Denial 

of  Revelation 199 

§  3.  The  Dogina  of  the  Infallibility  of  all  Parts  of  the  Bible  inju- 
rious to  the  Interests  of  Cin-istianity 206 

VI.  —  The  Improper  Treatment  of  Scripture 213 

VII.  —  Principles  of  Criticism  and  Interpretation,  applicable  chiefly 

to  the  New  Testament 217 

^  1.  Criticism 217 

§  2.  Interpretation 221 

General  Remarks 226 

Chapter  IV. 

CHRISTIANITY   INTEIXIGIBLE,   RATIONAL,   AND   PRACTICAL. 

I.  —  The  Teachings  of  the  Saviour  distinguished  for  their  Clearness 

and  Simplicity 227 

II.  —  The  Principles  of  Christianity  suitable  to  all  Capacities  .     .     .     234 

III.  —  Christianity  not  a  Religion  of  Speculative  or  Theoretical  Pro- 

positions, but  of  Vital  Facts  and  Practical  Principles  .     .     .     239 

IV.  —  The  Creeds  and  Mysteries  of  the  New  Testament  Simple  and 

Comprehensible 243 

^  1.  Creeds  of  the  New  Testament 243 

^  2.  Mysteries  of  the  New  Testament 247 

V. —  Belief  in  Unintelligible  Mysteries  and  Metajdiysical  Cn^cds  not 

essential  to  Salvation 250 

Chapter  V. 

IRINITARIANISM    KITHER    DNINTELLIGIRLK    OR    SKLK-CONTKADICTORY. 

1  —  N'ari.iUi  and  Opposite  Statements  or  Dcliiiitions  q(  the  Doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity 257 

^  1.  The  Apostolic  or  Unitarian  Trinity 260 

Itcmarks 2'iO 

\  2.  The  original  Niccne  Trinity       203 

Remarks  and  Animadversions 263 

^8.  The  Constantinopolitan  Trinity  261 


Xii  CONTKNTS. 

Section  I'xee 
1.  (continued.) 

^  4.  The  Trinity  of  Unequal  Persons  or  Gods 265 

Iicmarks  and  Animadversions 266 

^  5.  The  Athanasian  Trinity,  or  the  Trinity  of  Co-equal  Persons    .  268 

Remarks  and  Animadversions 270 

§  6.  The  Westminster  Trinity 273 

Remarks  and  Animadversions 278 

Remarks  on  the  Ancient  and  Modern  Theories  of  Eternal  Gene- 
ration and  Procession 271 

The  Tendency  of  a  Denial  of  Christ's  Kternal  Sonship     .     .    .  276 

\  7.  The  Trinity  of  Self-existent  and  Independent  Persons      .     .     .  277 

Remarks  and  Animadversions 279 

\  8.  The  Trinity  of  Distinct,  Eternal,  and  Infinite  Minds  or  Beings  .  '280 

Remarks  and  Animadversions 284 

\  9.  The  Trinity  of  Distinct  Persons,  Subsistences,  or  Agents     .    .  289 

Remarks  and  Animadversions 292 

§  10.  The  Trinity  of  the  Ipseity,  the  Alterity,  and  the  Community    .  295 

Remarks  and  Animadversions 296 

^  11.  The  Trinity  of  Distinctions,  or  Mysterious  Persons     ....  297 

Remarks  and  Animadversions 300 

I  12.  The  Trinity  of  Names,  Modes,   Relations,  or  Characters;    of 

Impersonations,  Developmeuts,  or  Manifestations    ....  301 

Remarks  and  Animadversions 308 

f  13.  Summary  of  Trinities       311 

Synonymes,  Definitions,  and  Descriptions  of  the  I'hrase, "  Three 

Persons"  in  One  Godhead 312 

Titles,  Attriljutes,  and  Functions  of  the  Three  Persons  in  the 

Godhead 314 

^  14.  Tiie  Apostolic  or  Unitarian  Trinity  (rfsumed) 316 

II.  —  'I'iie  Doctrine  of  a  Triune  God  Incompreiicnsible  and  Irrational  317 
i,  1.  This  Dogma,  no  less  than  Transnbstantiation,  opposed  to  Com- 
mon Sense 317 

\  2.  The  Dogma  of  a  Triune  God   utterly  Incomprehensil)le,  and 

repugnant  to  Reason 818 

III.  —  Theological  Terms  cither  Unintelligible  and  Useless,  if  not  Per 
nicious;   or  Expressive  of  Ideas,  and  should  therefore  be 

clearly  Defined £M 


CONTENTS.  XUl 

Chapter  VL 

the  trinity  in  unity,  and  the  deity  of  christ,  not 
doctrines  of  revelation. 

Section.  Page. 

I.  —  The  Terms  "Trinity,"  "Triune  God,"  "Person,"  "Hypos- 
tasis," "  Homoousion,"  &c.,  Unscriptural  and  Improper       .    331 
II.  —  The  Doctrine  of  a  Triune  God,  or  of  the  Deity  of  Christ,  not 

revealed  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  known  to  the  Jews      .    .    334 

§  1.  Not  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament 334 

^  2.  A  Triune  God  and  the  Deity  of  Christ  unknown  to  the  Ancient 

Jews 339 

Explanation  of  the  Phrase,  "  Word  of  the  Lord,"  occurring  in 
the  Old  Testament  and  in  other  Jewish  Writings    ....     345 

III.  —  The  Doctrine  of  a  Triune  God,  or  of  the  Deity  of  Christ,  not 

revealed  to  the  Disciples  before  the  day  of  Pentecost       .    .    351 

IV.  —  The  Doctrine  of  a  Triune  God,  or  of  the  Deity  of  Christ,  not 

divulged  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 356 

V.  —  No  Doctrines  additional  to  those  previously  taught  by  Christ, 
or  communicated  on   the  day  of    Pentecost  by  the  H0I3' 

Spirit,  inculcated  in  the  Epistles 363 

VI.  —  A  Triune  God,  and  the  Deity  of  Christ,  not  Doctrines  of  Ex- 
press Revelation 366 

VII.  —  The  Doctrine  of  a  Triune  God,  and  of  the  Deity  of  Christ, 

cannot  be  proved  from  Holy  Scripture 374 

Chapter  VII. 
god  is  one.  —  the  father  only,  the  true  god. 

I.  —  The  Existence  of  a  Triune  God  not  discernible  by  the  Light 

of  Nature 877 

U.  —  The  Unity  of  God  a  Fundamental  Principle  of  both  Natural 

and  Revealed  Religion 381 

t  1.  Importance  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Divine  Unity 881 

t  2.  The  Unity  of  God  proved  by  Reason,  and  manifested  in  the 

Works  of  Creation 384 

\  3.  The  Unity  of  God  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 

the  New  Testament 388 


Xiv  CONTENTS. 

B^rtion.  Pa«« 

ill. —  God,  the  Fath'jr,  the  only  Person  or  Being  who  is  UiiJerived  or 

Self-existeiit  and  Supreme 393 

IV.  —  The  One  Supi-eme  Person  or  Beinji,  the  I'atlier,  the  Only  Object 

of  Primary  and  Unceasing  Adoration 397 

§  1.  Tlie  Worsliip  of  a  Trinity  Unscriptural  and  Improper  —  God 

to  be  addressed  as  One 397 

\  2.  The  Father  entitled  to  Supreme  Worship 399 

\  3.  The  Son  rarely,  the  Holy  Ghost  (as  a  Person  different  from  the 

Father)  never,  in  the  Bible,  addressed  in  Prayer     ....     4C0 
§  4.  The  Father,  almost  to  the  entire  Exclusion  of  the  Son  and  Holy 
Ghost,  worshipiicd  by  the  Trinitarian  Congregationalists,  or 
Independents,  of  England 402 

Chapter  VIIL 
jesos  christ  inferior  to  god,  the  father. 

I.  —  In  his  Nature  and  his  Attributes,  Christ  Inferior  to  God      .    .  407 

§  1.  As  a  Divine  Being,  Christ  Inferior  to  the  Father 408 

)  2.  As  a  Pre-existent  Being,  or  even  as  the  Creator  of  the  World, 

Christ  not  necessarily  God 412 

n.  —  Deficiency  of  Proof  for  Christ's  Existence  before  his  Appear- 
ance on  Earth 414 

^  I    Christ  not  the  Lord  God,  or  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  who  ap- 
peared to  the  Patriarchs  and  the  Prophets 414 

§2.  Christ's  being  "sent"  or  "proceeding  from  God,"  and  his 

"  coming  down  from  Heaven,"  Phrases  signifying  that  ho 

had  received  the  fullest  Instruction  and  Authority  from  God  417 

111.  —  Christ's  Sonship  not  implying  an  essentially  Divine  Nature, 

but  his  being  the  Messiah,  his  Moral  Resemblance  to  God, 

and  God's  Love  towards  him 419 

IV  —  Christ  not  called  "  God,"  in  the  highest  Sense  of  the  Term     .  426 

V.  —  Christ  trained  by  Divine  Providence  to  act  as  the  Messiah      .  434 

VI.  —  In  his  Offices  and  Qualifications,  Christ  Subordinate  to  God    .  438 

{)  1.  Christ  as  a  Divine  Teacher,  and  a  Worker  of  Miracles   .    .    .  438 

4  2.  Christ  as  Lord  while  on  Earth 443 

^  8.  Christ  as  Saviour  or  Redeemer 443 

5  4.  Ch.-ist  as  Mediator  444 


CONTENTS.  XV 

Section.  P'UW 

VII.  —  The  Moial  Cliaractcr  of  Christ,  that  of  a  Finite  and  Depenilent 

Being 446 

§  1.  As  exhibited  in  liis  Habitual  Piety 440 

§  2.  As  exliibited  amid  Temptations 4fi0 

§  3.  As  exliibited  in  his  Last  Sufi'erings 454 

VIII. —  Christ  not  God,  but  the  Representative,  the  Manifestation,  tlio 

Moral  Image,  of  God 458 

IX.  —  As  Head  of  tiie  Church,  and  as  Judge  of  Mankind,  Ciu-ist 

derived  his  Power  and  Glory  from  God 464 

X. —  Christ  not  to  be  worshipped  with  Supreme  Veneration,  but 
with  the  Honor  due  to  one  who  faithfully  performed  the 
Will  of  God,  and  died  for  the  Salvation  of  Men      ....    469 
§  1.  Civil,  not  Divine,  Homage  paid  to  Jesus  while  on  Kartli      .     .    469 
4  2.  Secondary,  not  Supreme,  Homage  paid,  or  required  to  be  paid, 

to  Christ,  after  his  Exaltation  to  Heaven 471 

Chapter  IX, 

THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  NOT   A   THIRD   PERSON   IN   THE  GODHEAD, 
BUT   GOD   HIMSELF,   OR   IIIS   INFLUENCES,   GIFTS,   &c. 

I.  —  Deficiency  of  Kvidence  for  the  Deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  a 

Third  Person  in  the  Godhead 477 

II.  —  The  Holy  Spirit,  either  God,  the  Father,  or  the  Divine  Power, 

Influences,  or  Gifts 481 

§  1.  God,  without  Distinction  of  Persons 481 

§  2.  The  Power,  Influence,  or  Gifts  of  God 482 

III.  —  The  Holy  Spirit,  if  a  Person  diflferent  from  the  Father,  Inferior 

to  Him  and  Christ 485 


INDEXES. 

I.  —  Texts  quoted  or  referred  to 487 

II.  —  Early  Christian  Writers  referred  to 493 

III.  —  Trinitarians  quoted  or  referred  to 494 

IV. —  Unitarians  referred  to 608 


INTRODUCTION. 


It  ls  well  krcwn,  that  for  many  ages  the  Christian  church  has  been 
divided  into  two  great  classes,  distinguished  from  each  other  by  the 
names  of  Unitarian  and  Trinitarian. 

L  According  to  the  former  class,  the  Almighty  and  Iniinite  Being, 
to  whom  universal  natm-e,  both  material  and  spiritual,  owes  its  exist- 
ence and  preservation,  is  strictly  One,  —  one  in  a  sense  similar  to  that 
in  which  the  word  is  employed  when  men  speak  of  an  individual 
belonging  to  any  order  or  species  of  intelligent  natiu-es,  —  one  Mind, 
one  Spirit,  one  Person,  one  Agent.  Tliis  Being,  and  he  alone,  is 
self-existent,  underived,  independent;  the  only  absolute  Possessor 
of  every  perfection;  the  single  and  original  Soiu-ce  of  aU  existence, 
of  all  might,  of  aU  wisdom,  of  all  goodness ;  the  God  and  Father  of 
all  intelligences,  whether  celestial  or  terrestrial,  human  or  divine; 
the  God  and  Father  even  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who,  though 
immeasurably  superior,  in  moral  and  spiritual  grandeur,  to  all  other 
beings  of  whom  we  have  any  knowledge,  was  and  is  dependent  on  the 
One  Supreme  and  Universal  Parent  for  his  existence,  his  powers,  and 
his  offices,  —  for  his  authority  and  qualifications  as  the  Messiah ;  as 
the  Representative  or  Vicegerent  of  God ;  as  the  Teacher,  the  Saviour, 
the  King,  and  the  Judge  of  men. 

Some  Unitarians  are  of  opinion,  that  Christ  was,  in  Ins  entire  nature, 
a  man,  raised  up  by  the  Almighty,  and  endowed  with  an  inspimtion 
fiir   surpassing  that  of   any  other   Heaven-taught   Prophet;    others, 

1 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

tibat,  before  liis  appearance  on  the  earth,  he  liad  existed  in  heaven  as  a 
created,  superhuman,  if  not  superangelic,  being.  Some  have  tliought 
that  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  Spirit  of  God,  particularly 
as  shown  by  Jesus  and  the  apostles,  had  also  a  pcrsomd  though  derived 
existence ;  while  others,  the  majority,  liave  considered  tlie  divine  sjiii-it, 
flowing  throughout  tlie  Sacred  liecords,  to  be  either  God  himself,  or 
his  gifts,  agency,  and  uifluence,  whether  physiail,  moral,  or  spuitual, 
—  whether  natural  or  supernatural  They  all,  however,  believe  m  the 
strict  or  simple  Unity  and  the  miri vailed  perfections  of  Ilim  who  is 
God  and  Father,  and  in  the  derivation  of  Christ's  nature,  power,  and 
glory,  and  of  tlie  existence  and  attributes  of  all  other  persons  or  beings, 
from  the  one  Creator,  the  one  Pai-ent,  the  one  God. 

Whatever  differences  of  opinion,  tlien,  may  exist  among  Unitarians 
coqceming  the  particular  nuik  in  the  scale  of  crciition  to  wliich  our 
Lord  or  any  other  intelligence  belongs,  there  is  no  difference  whatever 
respecting  the  great  doctiune  which  contradistinguishes  them  from 
their  TriniUirian  brethren.  On  this  sul)ject  there  is  among  tliem  no 
contrariety  of  sentiment ;  and  the  doctrine,  whether  true  or  false,  is  so 
8im])le  as  to  l)e  incapalile  of  being  misunderstood. 

II.  According  to  the  second  of  the  above-mentioned  classes,  —  tlie 
Trinitiirian,  —  the  Deity  is  One,  and  yet  Three ;  one  God,  l)ut  three 
hypostases,  or  Persons,  —  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Gliost; 
each  of  whom  is  the  uncreated,  incomprehensible,  eternal,  and  almighty 
God,  tliough  they  do  not  by  any  means  constitute  three  uncreated, 
ineomprehonsible,  eternal,  and  almighty  Gods ;  each  being  diffei'ent  in 
some  respect  from  the  otliers,  though  they  are  one  in  essence,  and 
equal  in  attril)utes.  The  second  of  tiiese  pei-sons  —  God  the  Son, 
the  Son  of  God,  the  Logos,  or  the  Word  —  ass^nned  human  nature 
in  the  womb  of  the  lilcssed  Virgin,  and,  after  a  lajjse  of  tliirty  years 
from  his  birth,  entered  uj)on  liis  ofHce  as  the  long-exj)ected  Messiah  ; 
uniting  in  liis  person  two  natures,  one  of  wliich  was  truly  inunan,  and 
the  other  truly  divine.  In  otlior  words,  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity  bec;mie  God-miui. 


DIVERSITIES   OF  TRINITARIANISM  6 

Tills,  SO  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  authorized  statements  of 
Triiiitorianism  that  we  have  seen,  is  the  professed  belief  of  all,  or 
nearly  all,  Trinitarians ;  and  yet,  strangely  enough,  either  the  kngiuige 
used  is  so  difficult  of  comprehension,  or  the  ideas  involved  in  the  terms 
are  so  contradictory,  tliat  the  supporters  of  tliis  doctrine,  whenever 
they  ventm-e  to  describe  or  explam  what  they  mean,  and  sometimes 
even  in  their  briefest  definitions,  affirm  or  concede  some  particular 
pouit  wliich  is  fatal  to  the  prmciple  itself  on  which  their  beHef  is 
founded.  Thus,  many  Trinitaiians  —  adopting  the  Athanasian  Creed 
so  called  —  declare  the  uncreated  and  eternal  Son  to  have  been 
begotten  of  the  Father,  and  the  uncreated  and  eternal  Holy  Ghost 
to  have  proceeded  from  the  Father  and  the  Son;  but  it  is  freely 
acknowledged  by  not  a  few  theologians  of  high  eminence,  some  of 
whom  have  been  distinguished  for  their  opposition  to  Unifcirianism. 
that  the  doctrines  of  eternal  generation  and  procession  clash  Avith  the 
idea  of  self-existence  and  independence,  —  an  idea  involved  in  the  verj' 
conception  of  a  first  Supreme  Cause.  According  to  the  same  train 
of  thought,_a  host  of  learned  Trinitarians  have  not  scrupled  to  affirm, 
that  a  pre-eminence  and  a  subordination  obtain  among  the  three  persons 
in  the  Godhead;  —  that  the  Father  is  the  Soiu'ce,  the  Fountain,  the 
Head,  the  Principle  of  being ;  and  that  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
derived  their  existence  and  their  attributes  from  the  Father;  — 
language  than  which  none  can  more  clearly  imply  sujieriority,  infe- 
riority, and  inequality ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  Father,  and  he 
only,  is  the  true  GocL  On  the  other  hand,  some  have  boldly  affirmed, 
that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  as  distinct  from  each  other 
as  Peter,  James,  and  John,  —  that  they  are  three  distinct,  infinite 
Beings  or  jNImds;  thus  virtually  giving  up  the  notion  of  a  Triune 
Deity,  and  adopting,  though  with  a  vague  unconsciousness  and  without 
profession,  that  of  tliree  Gods :  while  others,  again,  have  defined  the 
word  "  person  "  to  signify,  not  a  distinct,  intelligent  agent,  but  a  raer* 
rektion  in  the  Godhead,  as  if  ordy  one  divine  agent  acted  in  the  seve- 
ral  characters  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 


4  INTRODUCTION 

Thus,  as  it  appears  to  us,  and  as  in  the  following  pages  will  be  de- 
monstrated, is  Trinitarianism  inconsistent  mth  itself.  Thus,  in  its  verj- 
attempts  to  free  itself  from  difficulties,  is  it  obliged  to  acluiowledge 
principles  which  war  against,  and  tend  to  destroy,  its  o^\^l  elements. 

We  are  not  una^vare,  that  the  various  parties  into  which  Ti'initiirians 
are  divided  —  clearly  percei\ing  and  pointing  out,  as  tliey  do,  the 
errors  and  absurdities  of  their  bretlu'en,  but  with  only  a  dim  recogni- 
tion of  their  own  —  have  each  felt  imwilling  to  regai-d  the  others  as 
orthodox,*  and  have  been  often  disposed  to  shut  tliem  out  from  their 
o\\Ti  fold,  or  to  throw  them  into  the  ranks  of  their  professed  opponents, 
the  Antitrinitaritins.  But,  however  they  may  differ  in  their  expUca- 
tions  of  the  doctrine  from  which  they  are  denominated,  and  —  in 
their  several  attempts  to  explain  the  imexpkinable,  and  reconcile  the 
in-cconcikble  and  absurd  —  give  out,  in  spite  of  themselves,  glimmer- 
ings of  Scriptiu:al  truth,  or  jield  up  positions  serviceable  to  the  cause 
of  Unitirianism,  —  we  ventm-e  to  affirm,  that,  whether  favorable  to  the 
views  of  Athanasius  or  of  Sabellius,  of  Sherlock  or  of  South,  of  Bishop 
Bull  or  of  Archbishop  Wliately,  they  are  al!,  with  but  few  exceptions, 
proi)erly  classed  under  the  general  designation  of  Trinitirian,  and  not 
Unit:u-ian.  They  have  all  acluiowledged  themselves  to  be  Trinitarian, 
and  many  of  them  have  gloried  in  the  name,  —  have  all  belonged  to 
Trinitarian  churches,  —  have  all  subscribed  to,  or  acknowledged  a 
belief  in,  the  dogma  of  a  Trimie  God,  —  have  all  professed  Jesus 
Christ  to  be,  personally,  Almighty  God,  or  equal  to  him,  —  and  have 
all  refrained  from  being  united  to  churches  or  to  indi^^duals  who 
openly  and  unequivocally  regard  God  as  one,  and  only  one;  and 
who  believe  the  Lord  Jesus,  whctlier  as  human  or  suj)erhuman,  to  be 

•  The  term  "  Orthodox,"  whether  ns  a  noun  or  an  adjective,  will  l)o  used,  in  out 
own  remarks,  not  to  imply  literal  soundness  of  doctrine,  or,  ns  commonly  employed 
In  the  New-England  States,  to  dlstinjruisli  Trinitarian  from  Unitarian  Congrei^tion- 
alists,  but  merely  to  indicate  a  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  u  Triune  God,  of  whatever 
character  that  doctrine  may  bo,  as  opposed  to  the  opinions  of  Unitarians,  who  are 
rei^arded  by  their  opponents  as  heterodox,  or  unsound  iu  the  faith.  In  other  words, 
the  term,  when  used  by  us,  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  quotation,  whether  marked 
u  such  or  not. 


THE   APPARATUS   OF   TRINITARIANISM.  5 

a  created  being,  inferior  to  the  God  who  gave  him  his  existence  and 
his  powers. 

To  state,  however,  Trinitarianism  in  its  most  general  form,  and  -with 
an  acciu-acy  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose,  it  is  the  doctrine  which 
taaches  tlmt  in  the  one  God  there  are  tliree  co-essential,  co-equal,  and 
co-etemal  persons,  the  second  of  whom  became,  in  the  fulness  of  time, 
the  Messiah.  To  uphold  tliis  doctrine,  the  stores  of  erudition,  the 
subtilties  of  philosophy,  the  eloquence  of  the  pulpit,  and  the  pro- 
ductions of  the  press,  —  not  to  mention  the  decrees  of  synods  and  of 
councils,  the  articles  of  one  chm-ch,  and  the  confessions  and  catechisms 
of  others,  —  Lave  aU  been  called  into  requisition.  On  behalf  of  this 
doctrine,  in  particular,  have  treatises  and  comments  unmunbered  been 
written  and  published.  For  this  pm-pose  the  Bible  has  been  opened, 
ransacked,  and  re-ransacked ;  and  its  texts  —  in  fractions,  in  units,  and 
in  thousands  —  have  been  brought  into  logical  and  metaphysic  play. 
The  first  words  in  Genesis  have  been  deemed  to  intimate  a  pliu^lity 
of  persons  in  the  Godhead ;  the  last  in  the  book  of  the  Apocalyj^se, 
the  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ.  Indeed,  we  might  say,  almost  without  a 
rhetorical  figure,  that  nearly  every  sentence  in  the  Sacred  Records  has 
been  adduced,  either  by  itself  or  in  combination  with  others,  to  prove, 
confirm,  or  defend  the  dogma  of  a  Trimie  God.* 

Had  the  doctrine  adverted  to  not  been  impugned,  all  this  vast 
apparatus  of  learning,  of  philosophizing,  of  decreeing,  of  catechizing, 
of  \vrituig,  of  preaching,  and  of  printing,  would  not,  of  course,  have 
been  brought  into  operation.  Accordingly,  it  has  been  found,  that,  in 
dU  ages  of  the  Christian  church,  even  when  the  hand  of  power  wielded 
its  weapons  of  silence,  extermination,  and  death  against  "  heretics," 
there  were  witnesses  for  the  contrary  doctrine,  —  that  God  is  one, 
not  tlu-ee;  and  that  oiu-  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  "anointed  with  the  oil 


•  John  Weblet,  in  his  Sermons  on  Several  Occasions,  toI.  i.  p.  238,  says  that  the 
"  Trinity  in  Unity,  and  Unity  in  Trinity,  [is]  discovered  to  us  in  the  very  first  line 
of  his  [God's]  written  word,  ...  as  well  as  in  every  part  of  hi?  subsequent  revelatioiis, 
given  by  the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets  and  apostles." 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

of  gladness  above  his  fellows,"  was  inferior,  in  nature  and  in  attributes, 
to  the  Infinite  Bebg  whom  lie  called  his  Father  and  liis  God.  Alany 
of  these  witnesses  have  also,  m  the  most  public  mamier,  decLxred  their 
reasons  for  tiielr  behef ;  kive  appealed  to  Scripture  passages  wliich  they 
regarded  as  proving  the  simple  Oneness  of  God,  and  his  imqualified 
Supremacy  over  all  other  beings ;  and  have  endeavored  to  interpret 
such  texts  as  were  adduced  m  fiivor  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity,  and  of  tlie 
Deity  of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  harmony  with  what  ttsy 
thought  to  be  the  dictites  of  reason  and  the  teachings  of  revekition. 

The  usual  mode  of  answering  the  arguments  and  interpretations  of 
Unitarians  has  probably  been  that  to  wliich  we  have  just  adverted,  — 
the  adducing  of  an  immense  quantity  and  variety  of  proof,  of  which  a 
brge  portion  had  no  possible  relation  to  the  subject.  But,  unhappily, 
this  lack  of  discrimination  in  judging  of  e\idence,  tliis  wholesiile 
treatment  of  Sacred  Scripture,  —  so  common,  indeed,  amongst  all 
sects  and  on  all  theologicid  subjects,  —  was  not  a  matter  the  most 
objectionable.  Unacquainted  with  the  principles  of  a  generous  tole- 
ration, or  forgetful  of  the  mild  and  beneficent  spirit  of  tlieir  gi"eat 
Master,  the  dominant  i)arty,  when  they  did  not  hajjpen  to  use  the 
sword  of  the  civil  magistrate,  were  frequently  tempted  to  employ  other 
weapons  equally  effective  m  the  subjugation  of  free  thought,  and  the 
annihiktion  of  ojiinions  regarded  as  heretiail.  Many  of  the  older 
books  of  polemical  Truiitarians  are  filled  mth  accusations  ag;iinst  tlieir 
opponents,  of  denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them,  —  of  wilfully 
^vresting  the  Scriptm-es  to  their  o\m  destruction,  —  of  being  dia- 
beUevers  m  the  Bible ;  scliismatics,  blasphemers,  iiifidels ;  who,  unless 
converted  to  the  true  laith,  —  or,  as  we  should  interpret  it,  imless  they 
beheved  in  opposition  to  the  evidence  presented  to  tlieir  ovm.  minds, 
or  professed  opinions  contrary  to  their  ovm  convictions,  —  Avould  be 
consigned  by  the  God  of  love  to  everListing  Avoe. 

In  speaking  thus,  we  should  regret  to  be  thought  justly  chargeable 
witli  the  very  faidt  wliich  we  condemn.  We  do  not  mention  it  for 
the  pm-pose  of  tlu'owuig  any  odium  eitlier  on  Trinitai'ianism  or  on  its 


THE   CRY   OF   HERESY,  AND   THE   LESSON   OF   LOVE.  7 

advocates.  The  truth  is,  that  m  past  times  the  principles  of  a  genuine 
religious  liberty  Avere  but  faintly  understood,  —  scarcely  recognized 
except  by  a  few  of  those  who  suffered  for  their  adherence  to  an 
unjjopular  cause.  Had  Unitirians  been  the  prevailing  sect,  it  is  not 
improbable,  that  —  though,  fi-om  the  more  benign  character  of  their 
belief  and  their  professions  of  gi-eater  liberality,  less  worthy  of  excuse 
—  they  might  have  been  equally,  or  nearly  as,  regardless  of  the  claims 
of  brotherly  love  and  universal  toleration.  We  would  not,  therefore, 
rake  up  the  e\ils  of  the  past,  in  order  to  blame  the  present;  we 
would  not  collect  the  errors  of  the  flithers,  to  accumulate  them  on 
the  heads  of  their  cliikben ;  but  show,  on  the  contrary,  that  though 
stiU,  now  and  then,  may  be  heard  the  cry  of  heresy  and  the  doom 
of  damnation,  a  more  kind,  charitable,  considerate,  and  Christian 
spirit  is  working  its  way  uito  the  hearts  of  aU  sects ;  and  that,  despite 
of  a  theologj-  which  would  exclude  from  heaven  all  who  spurn  at 
priestly  power  and  creed-control,  many  Trinifcirians  are  actuated  by  a 
generous  impulse  —  the  impulse  of  Clmstian  principle  —  to  overthrow 
the  barriers  which  separate  them  from  Unitarians,  and,  whilst  sincerely 
attached  to  the  characteristics  of  their  faith,  glad  to  acknowledge,  that 
out  of  the  pale  of  their  own  temple,  as  well  as  within  its  precincts, 
there  are  great  and  good  men ;  sincere  disciples  of  the  Lord  Jesus ; 
and  heirs,  ^ith  themselves,  of  the  same  immortal  glory. 

Accordingly,  in  the  follomng  pages,  a  portion  of  the  beautifid  and 
noble  lessons  M-hich  have  issued  from  the  more  catholic  minds  of  the 
ckss  to  which  we  have  refeiTcd  wiU  be  presented  for  two  reasons : 
First,  To  aid  and  encourage  the  reader  to  cherish  a  spirit,  Mhich,  while 
it  prayerfully  and  dispassionately  seeks  for  light,  increasing  liglit,  and 
brooks  no  human  control  over  its  o-wti  thoughts  and  utterances,  would 
grant  to  others  the  same  pri\ileges  which  it  claims  for  itself;  humble 
in  the  possession  of  its  faith,  zealous  in  the  promotion  of  what  it 
deems  to  be  truth,  and  universal  in  its  love.  Secondly,  To  show,  that, 
if,  according  to  the  admissions  of  their  opponents.  Unitarians  are  many 
of  them  pure,  devout  Cliristians,  as  well  as  A-irtuous  and  honoral)la 


8  INTUODUCTIOX.  * 

men,  it  is  possible  tliat  the  particuLir  ^•ie^vs  of  religion  which  they 
profess  may  not,  after  all,  be  so  bad  as  they  have  been  rej^reseiited ; 
that  Unitarianism,  though  often  -silified  as  the  refuge  of  fools  and 
sciolists,  and  the  half-way  house  to  infidelity,  if  not  to  atheism,  may 
contain  soine  of  the  elements  of  ti-uth ;  nay,  may  perhaps  be  the  very 
truth,  though  now  imperfectly  conceived  and  uttered,  which  was  once 
proclaimed  by  Heaven  through  the  lips  and  -smtings  of  prophets  and 
apostles,  and  manifested  in  the  teacliings,  the  works,  the  prayers,  the 
sufferings,  the  life  and  de;ith,  of  the  Son  of  Goi 

We  have  said,  that,  along  Mith  a  gi"eat  deal  of  imcharitable  language, 
it  was  usual  to  reply  to  the  argiuncnts  and  interpretations  of  Unitarians, 
by  adducing  fcom  the  Bible,  in  favor  of  a  Trinity  in  Unit)',  a  vast 
number  of  passages,  wliich  had  notliing  wliatever  to  do  with  the 
question  at  issue.  In  the  heat  of  controversy,  where  victory  is  aimed 
at  as  much  as  the  possession  of  truth,  and  where  sectarian  passions 
are  as  likely  as  tlie  qualities  of  discretion  and  sober  judgment  to  be 
enlisted  in  the  cause  of  dogmas,  this  over-doing  in  the  collection  of 
proof-texts  is  to  be  more  or  less  expected,  not  only  from  Trinitarians 
as  such,  but  from  all  who,  with  more  zeal  than  knowledge,  are  engaged 
in  the  defence  or  the  demolition  of  jiai'ticular  points  in  theology. 
Amongst  all  denominations  will  be  found  men  who  have  more  intensity 
and  warmth  of  feeling  than  candor  or  wisdom,  —  more  zeal  to  projxi- 
gate  their  opinions  by  every  means  at  hand,  tbm  a  disposition  to 
acknowledge  difficidties,  or  a  spuit  to  welcome  truth  from  whatever 
quarter  it  may  proceed.  But  it  will  not  follow,  tluit,  because  some 
portions  of  the  e^idcnce  adduced  for  a  cerUvin  doctrine  are  sopliistical 
or  irrelevant,  all  the  other  portions  are  equally  false  or  invalid,  and 
the  doctrine  itself  without  any  fomicktion.  The  folhcy  of  oiie 
argument  does  not  imply  the  fallacy  of  all  other  arguments.  Wlien, 
therefore,  an  injudicious  commentator  or  controversialist  adduces 
Ps.  xxxvi.  9  ("  With  thee  is  the  fountiiin  of  life :  in  tliy  light  shall 
we  see  liglit")  in  favor  of  a  ])erson;d  Trinity,  or  ]*s.  xlv.  1  ("^ly 
heart  is  inditing  a  good  matter")  in  fiivor  of  a  phmility  of  hypuslasea 


THE  FEEBLENESS  OP  TRINITARIAN   SUPPORTS.  9 

in  the  Godhead,  or  of  the  eternal  generation  of  Clirist,  it  would  by 
no  means  be  justifiable  for  one  to  infer,  that  all  other  appeals  to 
Scripture,  in  support  of  these  doctrines,  are  as  futile  and  absui-d. 
The  only  fair  and  legitimate  effect  of  the  production  of  arguments  so 
obviously  groundless  should  be,  not  disbelief  in  the  doctrines  them- 
selves, but  an  apprehension  of  the  possibility  that  there  may  be  a  lack 
of  more  substantial  evidence,  when  so  much  stress  is  laid  on  what  is 
obviously  trifling ;  and  a  determination,  on  the  part  of  the  inquirer, 
to  examine  and  sift  that  testimony  which  appears  to  bear  greater 
marks  of  plausibihty  or  of  truth. 

Tliis  much  we  are  willing  to  concede ;  for  it  is  an  unquestionable 
feet,  that  every  good  and  great  cause  —  every  truth  in  science,  in 
morals,  or  in  rehgion  —  is  hable  to  be  injured  by  the  jjroduction 
of  unnecessary  and  futile  endence.  It  is  therefore  not  impossible, 
that,  while  for  its  support  much  of  what  is  insignificant  and  useless 
has  been  adduced,  the  doctrine  itself  of  a  Triune  God  may  yet  be 
true.  It  is  not  impossible  that  the  removal  of  the  false  supports 
which  have  been  placed  in  the  temple  of  Trinitarianism,  —  their  de- 
struction by  the  hands  of  the  candid  and  distinguished  of  those 
who  worsliip  at  its  altar,  —  may  have  tlie  tendency  rather  to  exhibit 
the  strength  and  durabiUty  of  the  febric  than  the  weakness  of  its 
foundation. 

We  freely  admit  all  this,  in  order  to  show  that  we  would  not  extend 
the  argument  against  Trinitarianism,  employed  in  this  work,  beyond 
its  legitimate  boimds.  But,  at  the  same  time,  we  have  no  hesitation 
in  affii'ming,  that  this  argument  —  di-awTi  from  the  involuntaiy  con- 
cessions of  our  opponents  —  assumes  an  au-  of  far  greater  probabiHty, 
and  rises  mto  evidence  which  may  justly  be  considered  as  presumptive, 
when  it  is  derived  fi-om  the  startling  and  unquestionable  fact,  that  the 
texts  on  wliich  Trinitarianism  must  rest  if  there  be  any  truth  at  all 
in  the  doctrine,  have  been  disposed  of  in  a  precisely  simiLir  way  as 
those  to  which  we  have  referred.  Let  us  suppose,  for  exami)le,  what 
will  scarcely  be  denied,  that  there  is  no  passage  in  the  whole  com|jas8 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

of  the  Eible  so  likely  to  countenance  the  doctrine  of  Clirist's  iden- 
tity of  nature  with  the  essence  of  the  Father  as  Jolui  x.  30,  "  I  and 
the  Father  are  one."  Now,  if  it  be  foimd  that  the  believers  in  thi? 
doctrine  —  those  amongst  them  -svho  by  universal  consent  are  regarded 
as  the  most  learned  and  judicious  critics  —  ai"e  forced  to  acknowledge 
that  tlie  oneness  spoken  of  is  a  moral,  not  a  metajjhysical,  union,  — 
a  miion  simiLxr  to  that  which  Christ  prayed  to  God  might  subsist 
between  his  followers  and  liimself,  —  then  is  there  a  strong  presump- 
tion that  the  Scriptures  contain  no  evidence  Mhatever  for  tlie  dogma 
of  Christ's  real  or  essential  identity  with  the  Father. 

Let  us  take  another  illustration,  in  respect  to  the  evidence  for  the 
doctrine  of  a  Triune  God.  We  will  assume  as  a  fact,  what  indeed  no 
one  can  gainsay,  that  the  grounds  for  controversy  on  tliis  point  have 
been  gi-eatly  narrowed.  All,  at  any  rate,  admit  that  certain  texts  are, 
or  appear  to  be,  much  more  favorable  than  others  to  the  doctrine  in 
question.  Of  these  it  is  impossible  to  select  two  which  are  more  to 
the  purpose  than  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  and  1  John  v.  7 ;  —  the  former 
containing  the  command  of  Jesus  to  the  apostles,  that  they  should 
"  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; "  and  the  latter  stating  that  "  there  are 
three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  and  these  three  are  one."  If,  in  the  volume  of  di\-ine 
revelation,  there  be  any  thing  which  approaches  in  phraseologj-  or  in 
meaning  to  tlie  terms  used  in  the  formidas  of  modem  Orthodoxy,  it 
is  surely  the  language  and  significance  of  these  passages ;  and,  more 
rcgirdful  of  the  nominal  resembLuiccs  than  of  tlie  real  differences,  a 
Triuitxrian  might,  with  some  show  of  reason,  exclaim,  "  Here,  here,  at 
least,  if  nowhere  else  in  the  Bible,  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and 
God  tiie  Holy  Ghost,  are  dcckrcd  to  be  three  persons  in  one  God,  the 
same  in  substance,  and  equal  in  i)ower  and  glory."  And  yet  what  are 
the  fiicts  of  the  case,  as  admitted  by  the  interpretations  and  criticisms 
of  not  a  few  Trinitirians  thcmsches ?  That  neither  of  these  passages 
demonstrates  the  doctrine  in  (question ;  tkit  neither  of  these  contains 


CONCESSIONS  TO   THE    PRINCIPLES   OF   ONITAUIANISM.  11 

a  syllable  respecting  equality  of  perfections,  or  imity  of  essence ;  that 
neither  utters  a  word  about  the  essential  Deity  of  the  Son  or  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;  tliat  neither  teaches  the  dogma  of  there  being  thi-ee 
persons  in  one  God;  —  that  the  baptismal  formula  merely  implies 
the  great  truth,  which  all  believers  were  to  profess,  that  Cliristianity 
originated  from  God,  was  commimicated  to  men  by  Chiist,  and  was 
confii-med  by  the  gifts  and  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  that 
the  oneness  of  the  tliree  heavenly  witnesses  was  nothing  more  than  a 
unity  of  testimony.* 

But  not  only  have  many  learned,  judicious,  and  candid  writers  in 
the  orthodox  body  been  imable  to  discern  satisfactory  proof  for  the 
doctrines  of  a  Trimie  God,  and  the  personal  Deity  of  Christ  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  in  those  texts,  singly  and  sejmi-ately  considered, 
which  have  been  deemed  by  others  as  perfectly  demonstrative :  not 
a  few  have  conceded  that  there  are  whole  classes  of  passages  and 
entire  books  of  the  Bible  which  afibrd  no  evidence  whatever  for 
Trinitarianism.  Thus  it  has  been  acknowledged  not  only  by  Roman 
Catholic  but  by  Protestant  di^'ines,  of  whom  the  number  is  increasing 
every  day  with  the  increase  of  knowledge  as  to  the  true  modes 
of  investigating  the  sense  of  Scripture,  that  the  Old  Testament  affords 
nought  but  the  faintest  glimmerings  of  the  dogma  of  a  Triune  God ; 
by  others  that  it  is  altogether  silent  on  the  subject  of  a  pluraHtj'  in 
the  divine  natm-e ;  by  others,  again,  that  the  great  Teacher  himself,  the 
Fomider  and  Perfecter  of  our  Faith,  taught  not  these  and  other  re- 
lated tenets  of  Orthodoxy ;  and  that  the  apostles,  even  after  they  were 
fiirnished  Avith  the  fullest  supplies  of  inspiration,  when  they  obtained 


*  For  the  sake  of  illustration,  and  to  give  the  utmost  possible  benefit  to  the 
Trinitarian  ari,'ument,  we  have  taken  for  grunted  that  the  passage  was  written  by 
St.  John.  But,  by  a  majority  of  critics  of  all  denominations,  this  is  denied ;  and  the 
amount  of  evidence  which  they  adduce  for  thiir  opinion  cannot  but  be  regai-ded 
as  suflBcient  to  banish  it  for  ever  from  a  place  in  the  Sacred  Volume.  Strict  accuracy 
requires  it  to  be  said,  that  the  interpolation  is  contained  in  a  portion  both  of  the 
seventh  and  the  eighth  verse,  as  follows:— "In  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  these  tliree  are  one.  And  there  are  three  that  bear  witneaj 
In  earth  " 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

such  ideas  of  the  nature  of  Christ's  kingdom  as  tliey  had  been  incajxible 
of  comprehending  from  the  hps  of  their  Master,  did  not,  in  then-  oral 
discoui"ses,  deliver  those  doctrines  concerning  God,  Cluist,  and  tlie 
Spii'it,  wliich  liave  been  commonly  regarded  by  "  evangelical "  wxiters 
as  saving  truths  of  tlie  gospel.  The  eminent  and  good  men  who  moke 
these  admissions  rest  their  tiiith  chiefly  on  a  few  texts  m  the  ^\Titings  of 
John  and  Paul,  —  texts,  however,  of  a  kuid  wliich,  fi-om  their  obscurity 
or  theb:  susceptibility  of  being  rendered  or  explained  in  different  and 
conti-ary  ways,  cannot,  according  to  principles  professedly  adopted  by 
almost  all  Christians  of  the  present  day,  be  consistently  regai-ded  as 
affordmg  undoubted  evidence  for  the  truth  of  any  conti'overted  point. 
Generally  speaking,  indeed,  tlie  principles  of  interpretation  which  are 
now  Lud  down  by  the  most  intelligent  and  the  most  esteemed  critics 
in  orthodox  chiu-ches,  wliile  leaving  mtiict  the  web  of  dinne  truth,  as 
to  the  Unity  of  God,  wliich  is  so  beautifully  woven  by  patri;irchs, 
prophets,  evangeHsts,  and  apostles,  necessarily  sweep  away  umiumbered 
cobwebs  as  to  essences,  hypostases,  personalities,  and  distmctions,  which 
have  been  spun  by  dogmatic  and  mystical  divines,  and  hung  by  them 
on  ever)'  leaf  of  Sacred  Writ. 

But  stUl  more :  with  scarcely  a  dissentient  voice,  the  most  distin- 
guished theologians  of  all  sects  have  acknowledged  that  reason 
and  revektion  alike  proclaim  the  existence  of  one,  and  of  only  one, 
Supreme  Mind,  one  self-existent  Being,  one  unrivalled  and  infinite 
Intelligence,  the  original  Source  of  all  existence,  —  of  all  that  is  great 
and  good  and  blessed ;  and,  with  a  harmony  but  partially  interrupted, 
they  have  also  acknowledged,  —  wliat,  indeed,  seems  insejjarable 
from  the  former  admission,  —  tliat  the  doctrine  of  three  co-ecpuil  and 
ro-etemal  persons  in  the  divine  natiu'c  —  the  doctrine  that  aiUs  one 
person,  God ;  another  jjcrson,  God ;  and  a  third,  God ;  and  which 
pronounces  these  three  to  be  only  one  God  —  is  a  doctrine  that 
cannot  be  discovered  by  the  use  of  the  highest  powers  of  the  human 
intellect ;  is  a  mystery  respecting  which  pliilosophy  and  mebii^hysics 
may  speculate,  but  which  they  cannot  prove  to  be  true ;  on  which  the 


THE   RUINS  OF  TRINITAUIANISM.  13 

heavens  slierl  no  light;    and  at  which  "Reason  stands  aghast,  and 
Faith  hersell'  is  half  confounded-" 

Now,  we  would  ask  if  it  be  at  all  probable  that  a  doctrine  can 
be  founded  in  ti-uth,  —  can  with  propriety  be  tei-med  a  doctrine 
of  revelation,  —  can  really  be  an  article  of  the  Jewish  or  the  Chiistian 
feith,  which  so  many  of  its  clearest-sighted  advocates  concede  to  be 
undeveloped  in  the  universe  of  matter  and  of  mind,  —  not  recognized 
by  Abraham  and  the  other  patriarchs,  —  not  announced  by  Moses  or 
any  of  his  fellow-prophets,  —  in  fact,  not  known  to  any  of  the  ancient 
Hebrews,  —  not  revealed  by  Jesus  during  his  ministry,  or  preached 
by  his  eai'liest  disciples ;  and  which  is  to  be  infen*ed  only  from  a  few 
dark  and  ambiguous  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  or  rather  in 
the  wiitings  of  but  two  of  the  apostles. 

We  would,  however,  avoid  rashness  in  drawing  the  inference,  —  so 
as  to  settle  the  question  at  issue,  —  that  Tiinitarianism  is  imquestion- 
ably  false  because  its  best  and  most  judicious  advocates  have  rejected 
as  irrelevant  so  much  of  that  Scriptmul  proof  which  had  so  frequently 
been  insisted  on  by  others  in  every  variety  of  form.  But  at  the  same 
time  we  cannot  avoid  concluding,  that  the  whole  fabric  of  Trinitarian- 
ism  must  be  exceedingly  weak,  and  rest  on  an  insecure  foundation, 
when  those  supports  which  have  been  deemed  the  strongest  are 
acknowledged  by  its  owners  to  be  altogether  powerless;  when  not 
only  beam  after  beam,  but  pillar  after  pillar,  are  overthrown,  not  by 
the  rude,  imhallowed  hands  of  "  heretics,"  but  by  the  softer  and  more 
gentle  touches  of  those  who  would  fain  be  sheltered  under  its  roof; 
and  when  the  firmest  ground  on  wliich  their  temple  stands  has  been 
proved  to  be,  not  a  rock,  but  sand,  by  the  clear-sightedness  and  candor 
of  the  very  men  who,  amid  the  &lling  ruins  and  crumbling  fragments, 
seem  vainly  to  think  that  they  AviU  find  a  refuge  imder  those  winajs 
from  which  others  of  their  friends  have  been  glad  to  escape. 

It  may  appear  strange,  that,  after  giving  up  as  weak  and  irrelevant 
the  strongest  and  the  most  jjertinent  proofs  that  can  be  adduced  in 
suppcrt  of  an  opinion,  good  and  wse  men  should  still  cling  to  it  with 

2 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

a  tenacity  which  cannot  be  loosened  by  evidence  of  a  contrary  nature  { 
that,  after  abandoning  their  best  arms  as  perfectly  useless,  and  their 
most  secure  positions  as  wholly  untenable,  they  should  not  at  last  be 
constniined  to  j-ield  up  the  whole  matter  of  debate,  with  all  their 
instruments  of  aggression  and  defence,  instead  of  ha^'ing  recourse,  as 
they  do,  to  ground  unfinn  as  a  morass,  and  to  weapons  wcixk  as  sti-aw. 
But  this  inconsistency  is  often  observable  in  predilections  of  various 
kinds.  Every  day  do  we  see  men,  judicious  and  sensible  in  other 
respects,  tenaciously  holding  opinions,  which  they  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  cherishing  from  an  early  period,  not  only  in  religion  and 
theology,  but  in  politics,  in  literature,  in  matters  of  business,  and  in 
the  common  aflEiirs  of  life,  long  after  they  have  acknowledged  that 
the  main  grounds  for  their  adherence  to  them  have  given  ^vay. 
And  thus  it  seems  to  be  in  regard  to  tliose  who,  abandoning  proof 
after  proof,  text  after  text,  —  some  of  these  being  passages  of 
Scripture  which  have  been  generally  adduced  as  the  very  bulwarks 
of  the  Trinitarian  doctrme,  —  still  cling  Anth  afiection,  if  not  ■\\ith 
ardor,  to  the  doctrine  itsel£  To  their  minds  it  may  be  hallowed  by 
tlie  sentiment  of  filial  love,  by  the  remuiiscences  of  youthful  piety, 
by  the  associations  of  kindi'cd  and  of  social  brotherhood,  and  by  the 
spiritual  nutriment  wliich  they  have  dra\vn  from  such  portions  of  truth 
as  have  been  blended  and  incorporated  witli  it,  but  wliich,  by  an 
illusion  of  the  imagiimtion,  they  suppose  to  be  derived  from  tlie 
doctrine  itself.  The  mere  fact,  then,  of  a  belief  in  dogmas  whose 
chief  proofs  have  been  conceded  to  be  weak,  irrelevant,  or  nugatory, 
can  afford  no  reason  for  supposing  th;it  arguments  of  a  more  sliadowy 
and  obscure  nature  are  sufficient  evidence  for  the  truth  of  the  dog- 
mas themselves. 

The  character  and  force  of  the  argument  here  employed,  m  sup- 
porting the  doctrine  of  the  simple  Unity  of  God,  will,  no  doubt,  be 
estimated  very  differently  by  different  minds;  but  that  it  is  of  no 
inconsiderable  weight  may  be  evinced  by  the  fiict,  that  Christians  of 
ill  denomuiations  most  readily  and  gladly  wield  it,  when,  iy  combating 


TOE   "ARGUMENTUM  AD  HOMINEM."  15 

with  unbelievers,  they  adduce  from  the  works  of  eminent  Deists 
testimonies  fevorable  to  the  supreme  excellence  of  Jesus'  character, 
to  the  special  divinity  of  liis  mission,  or  to  the  unrivalled  hoUness  and 
benign  influences  of  his  religion.  And  that  this  mode  of  reasoning  is 
universally  admitted  to  be  legitimate,  except  perhaps  by  those  against 
whom  it  is  urged,  may  also  be  shown  from  the  practice  of  orators, 
philosophers,  prophets,  and  apostles,  ay,  and  of  Christ  himself,  who 
have  not  scrupled  to  defend  the  cause  of  truth  and  righteousness  by 
appealing  to  the  prmciples  of  their  adversaries,  by  an-aying  against 
them  the  inconsistencies  and  contradictions  into  which  they  may  have 
Mien,  and  using  the  concessions  which  they  may  have  made  either 
spontaneously  or  with  reluctance. 

We  have  dwelt  at  some  length  on  this  point,  because  desirous 
of  exhibiting  to  the  reader  the  principal  aim  and  nature  of  the 
folloAving  work.  But  we  have  had  in  view  another  object,  which, 
though  in  some  respects  only  subsidiary  to  the  argument  spoken  of,  is 
of  higher  importance  to  the  interests  of  truth ;  namely,  tliat  of  pre- 
senting the  grounds  on  which  rest  the  criticisms  and  expositions  that 
are  deemed  favorable  to  the  principles  of  Unitarianism ;  of  assigning 
the  reasons  which  have  led  members  of  orthodox  chiu-ches  to  abandon, 
one  after  another,  the  proof-texts  once  so  commonly  adduced  in  sup- 
port of  Trinitarianism.  Here  the  appeal  to  the  hare  concessions 
of  opponents  may  be  laid  aside ;  for  it  is  evident  that  the  argument 
drawn  from  the  authority  of  orthodox  WTiters,  however  eminent  they 
may  have  been  for  their  talents  and  their  learning,  —  from  their 
acknowledgment  of  doubts  and  difficulties  in  regard  to  the  true 
import  of  passages  wliich  have  been  often  pronounced  as  ahen  to 
Unitarianism,  and  from  their  approval  or  application  of  modes  of 
exposition  destructive  to  the  alleged  evidence  for  the  doctrine  of  a 
Triune  God,  —  tliat  this  argument  —  the  argumentum  ad  hominem, 
pertuient  as  we  have  seen  it  to  be  in  other  cases,  and  consistent  with 
the  higliest  aims  of  a  truth-loving  spirit  —  should  not  be  deemed  as 
of  the  same  importance,  or  be  urged  vvith  the  same  amoimt  of  zeal, 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

as  when  it  is  accompanied  by  evidence  for  the  justness  of  the  admis- 
sions. Singly  \\ielded,  though  tending  to  vmsettle  tlie  fomid:itions  of 
■what  is  regarded  as  error,  it  is  perhaps  too  antagonistic,  ■^vithdra^A'ing 
the  mind  from  tlie  true  state  of  the  question,  and  the  conditions  on 
wliich  it  is  to  be  settled ;  perplexing,  rarfier  than  enhghtening,  the 
understanding  in  its  search  after  truth ;  and  not  altogether  satisfactory 
to  a  sold  longing  for  the  possession  of  what  is  real  and  positive  in 
matters  of  reUgion. 

It  is  therefore  natural  and  proper  to  ask.  Why  is  any  particular 
interpretation  of  a  passage  to  be  preferred  to  others  ?  Why  are  the 
testimonies  which  have  so  generally  been  relied  on  as  worthy  of  trust 
to  be  no  longer  entitled  to  credence  and  respect  ?  "  I  am  astonished," 
it  may  be  said  by  one  who  has  been  brought  up  in  "  tlie  straitest-  sect " 
of  the  Trinitarian  theology,  and  been  duly  furnished  ^^'ith  the  proof- 
texts  in  its  fivor,  but  who  lias  had  only  sHght  opportunities  of  judging 
of  the  discrepancies  of  opinion  and  interpretation  existing  among 
orthodox  ^vriters,  —  "I  am  astonished  beyond  measure  when  you  lay 
before  me  the  names  of  a  host  of  Trinitarians,  who  have,  in  one  way 
or  another,  been  sapping  the  very  foundations  of  their  o^vn  behef ; 
who,  for  example,  in  opposition  to  my  Catechism  and  my  Creed,  agree 
with  Unitarians  in  sa)ing  m  the  strongest  tenns,  that  the  title  •  Son 
of  God,'  used  of  Jesus  Cluist,  does  not  imply  liis  participation  or  liis 
])ossession  of  the  dinne  essence.  I  know  not  what  to  tliink  of  it ; 
but,  though  I  have  been  led  to  esteem  many  of  these  as  among  the 
ablest  fi-iends  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine,  they  seem  to  be  snatching 
from  me  one  of  the  main  supports  of  my  hope  and  confidence  in  tlie 
lledeemer.  Reasons  conclusive  to  their  minds  must  have  existed  for 
tlieir  thus  yielding  up  tlie  old  positions,  and  adopting  the  ^iews  which 
I,  and  many  of  my  brethren,  liave  regarded  as  new  and  heretiaiL 
Now,  tell  me  what  these  reasons  are,  that  my  own  mind  may  be 
satisfied  whetiier  they  are  false  or  true." 

To  a  request  so  amjjly  justified  l)y  the  duty  of  individual  examina- 
tion, answers  will  be  given,  whenever  pnicticable,  by  tlic  authors  who 


PLAN  OF  THE  WORK.  17 

have  made  the  concessions;  sometimes  colored,  indeed,  as  may  be 
expected,  by  the  hues  of  a  peculiar  phraseology,  but  agreeing  in  the 
main  with  the  interpretations  or  the  arguments  ■which  have  been 
proposed  and  urged  by  Unitarians.  In  some  cases,  however,  they 
will  be  presented  without  any  formal  statement  of  reasons,  either  be- 
cause they  are  not  assigned  by  the  wi'iters  from  whom  we  quote; 
because  they  are  so  evidently  just  as  to  requii-e  no  proof ;  or  because, 
having  been  already  stated  by  one  or  more  of  the  witnesses  cited,  it 
wiU  be  unnecessary  to  reiterate  them,  as  it  may  well  be  supposed, 
that  others,  in  propounding  similar  interpretations,  were  influenced  by 
similar  reasons. 

To  afford  the  reader  a  more  comprehensive  idea  of  the  plan  W8 
mean  to  pursue  in  conducting  oiu:  argument,  it  may  not  be  improper 
to  exhibit  the  order  in  which  the  subjects  will  be  treated :  — 

1.  We  will,  in  the  first  place,  exhibit  the  sentiments  of  distinguished 
Trinitaiians,  to  show  that  the  spirit  of  sectarianism  is  inconsistent  with 
the  spirit  of  Christianity ;  meaning,  by  the  term  "  sectarianism,"  not 
an  honest  preference  of  one  form  of  Christian  faith  to  another ;  not  a 
well-grounded  attachment  to  a  particular  denomination,  as  better 
adapted  than  others  to  jjromote  the  principles  of  piety,  benevolence, 
and  truth ;  not  a  calm  and  continuous  effort  to  diffuse  such  opinions 
as,  after  due  inquiry,  we  think  best  calculated  to  advance  the  glory  of 
God  and  the  good  of  man,  —  but  an  absorbing  interest  in  the  pettiest 
of  theologic  peculiarities;  a  fiery  zeal  for  externals  and  ceremonies, 
mysteries  and  mysticisms;  a  fond  predilection  for  the  differences 
which  separate  Chiistians  from  one  another,  and  a  supreme  unconcern 
for  the  agreements  which  unite  them ;  a  punctiHous  pajment  of  "  tithe 
and  anise  and  cummin,"  wth  a  non-observance  of  the  "  weightier 
matters  of  the  law  "  and  the  gospel,  —  "  justice,  mercy,  and  fidelty ; " 
a  demoniac  desire  to  bum  the  bodies  and  to  damn  the  souls  of  those 
who  will  not  bow  do^vn  before  the  idols  of  their  vain  and  riarrov? 
imagination. 

2* 


18  INTR0DDCT10>. 

2.  Having  quoted  sentiments  fraught  witli  the  purest  spirit  of 
Clu-istiunity  and  of  Catholicism,  —  some  of  them  glowing  with  love 
to  Cluistian  disciples  of  every  name,  and  others  with  good-will  to  the 
universal  family  of  God,  whatever  religion  they  may  profess ;  some  of 
them  gi\ing  expression  to  a  righteous  indignation  at  the  gross  forms 
of  bigotry,  of  personal  liate  and  destruction,  which  marked  the  darker 
times  of  our  forefathers,  and  others  rebuking  the  more  subdued  and 
refined,  but  not  less  galling,  species  of  persecution  which  is  sometimes 
seen  at  the  present  day,  and  which  consists  of  the  dcnud  of  Cliristian 
intercourse  and  Christian  communion  to  those  who,  though  sincerely 
aiming  to  worsliip  the  God  and  Father  of  all,  to  reverence  liis  beloved 
Son  and  Messenger,  and  to  cherish,  in  all  their  thoughts  and  jjiu-suits, 
the  holy  and  benignant  sphit  of  their  Master,  liave  d;u'ed  to  ditfer 
from  the  opinions  which  are  generally  received ;  —  haAing  cited  these 
golden  sentiments,  as  set  forth  in  the  waitings  of  orthodox  behevers, 
we  will  proceed,  in  the  second  place,  to  state  the  ^iew•s  of  the  same 
authors,  or  of  others  belonging  to  the  same  churches,  in  respect  to  the 
riglit  and  duty  of  every  man  to  employ  his  powers  in  the  attiimment 
of  rehgious  truth ;  to  be  animated  by  such  dispositions,  and  to  adopt 
such  means,  as  are  most  conducive  to  this  end ;  and  to  avoid,  as  far  as 
in  him  lies,  those  tendencies  of  his  nature,  and  those  influences  around 
him,  which  are  calculated  to  impede  liis  progress,  or  to  lead  him  into 
error. 

3.  As  immediately  and  intimately  connected  with  this  department  of 
our  work,  we  Avill  next  prove,  by  the  aid  of  a  few  of  the  most  eminent 
Trinitiirlan  Protest;inLs,  that  reason  and  revcLition  are  the  only  legiti- 
mate standxrds  of  religious  doctrine ;  that  tliey  are  perfectly  consistent 
with,  and  never  antagonistic  to,  each  other ;  tliat  the  disparagement 
of  the  intellectual  powers  is  followed  by  tlie  most  pernicious  results ; 
that,  if  interpreted  by  the  lights  which  can  be  thrown  over  it,  Holy 
Writ  is  sufficient,  witliout  the  decrees  of  synods  and  councils,  the 
authority  of  popes  and  cliurchcs,  or  the  dicta  of  fathers,  priests,  and 
reformers,  to  be  a  rule  of  faith  and  commimiou  for  all  the  disciples 


PLAN   OF   THE  WORK.  .19 

of  Jesus ;  but  that,  on  the  other  hand,  the  exercise  of  private  judgment 
will  not  guard  us  against  many  errors  of  belief  and  practice,  miless  we 
be  careful  to  study  the  Bible  with  the  simple  view  of  learning  the 
sense  intended  by  the  wi'iters,  or  by  the  speakers  whose  sentiments 
they  report ;  and  to  discriminate,  in  that  collection  of  most  holy  books, 
between  the  local  and  the  universal,  the  temjjorary  and  the  etenial,  the 
human  and  the  cUvine,  —  between  the  words  and  thoughts  of  man  and 
tlie  wisdom  and  revelation  of  God. 

4.  We  shall  then  be  prepared  to  inquire  whether  the  Christianity 
of  the  New  Testament  be  a  simple  or  a  mysterious  religion, — 
whether,  in  its  essence  and  character,  it  be  speculative  or  active, 
theoretical  or  practical;  a  system  of  dogmas,  or  a  development  of 
pi'inciples ;  a  series  of  unkno^^^l  and  unintelligible  propositions  which 
must  be  subscribed  to  and  beheved  in,  or  a  revelation  of  truths  which 
common  minds  may  miderstand,  sincere  and  honest  hearts  appreciate, 
and  all  men  reduce  to  practice.  And  the  result  of  this  inquuy  will 
be  fomid  to  be,  according  to  the  excellent  observations  of  some  dis- 
tinguished Trinitarians,  that  the  reUgion  of  Christ  is,  in  its  sublime 
simpUcity,  and  in  its  conformity  with  the  highest  reason,  adapted  alike 
to  the  capacity  of  the  many  and  the  few,  —  of  the  peasant  and  the 
philosopher. 

5,  Christianity  is  therefore  simple,  consistent  with  itself,  and  easily 
imderstood;  while,  on  the  contrary,  Trinitarianism  is  a  system  of 
dogmas  which  are  either  unintelligible  or  self-contradictor)\  The 
"Trinity"  of  the  New  Testament  and  of  the  ApostoHc  Church  — 
if  we  may  use  a  term  imknoAin  to  Scripture  —  consists  of  a  moral 
and  not  a  metaphysical  union ;  a  union  of  will  and  purpose  between 
the  universal  Father,  his  best-beloved  Son,  and  (to  complete  the 
figure)  the  spirit  of  power  and  wisdom  which  God  imparted  to  Christ, 
and,  through  Christ,  to  the  apostles.  But  the  Trinity  of  creeds,  — 
the  Trinity  which  has  no  place  in  the  New  Testament,  —  the  Trinity 
wliich  would  either  identify  the  Son  and  Sei-vant  of  God  with  liis 
Father  and  Proprietor,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  a  separate  person,  with 


20  INTRODUCTION. 

the  Father  and  the  Son ;  or  would  represent  three  conscious  persons 
as  only  one  conscious  Being ;  or  three  infinite  beings  as  only  one  God ; 
or  tlu-ee  names  or  characters  of  the  Deity,  the  one  as  sending,  and  the 
others  as  sent,  —  the  one  as  inspiring,  and  the  others  as  inspired,  — 
the  one  as  a  Petitioner,  the  other  as  a  person  or  being  to  whom 
petitions  are  presented,  and  the  tliu'd  as  neither  prajing  nor  being 
prayed  to,  —  this  Trinity  of  human  creeds,  in  whatever  manner  it  may 
have  been  exhibited,  is  a  doctrine  which  shocks  the  unperverted  mind, 
and  is  as  much  repugnant  to  recison  and  common  sense  as  is  the  tenet 
of  Transubstantktion  itself.  This  conclusion  may  be  fliirly  deduced 
from,  if  it  is  not  ahvays  expressed  in,  the  language  made  use  of  by 
the  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants,  all  professed  Trinitarians,  from 
whom  we  mean  to  quote. 

6,  Happily  for  the  consistency  of  God's  ways,  or  for  the  faitli  of  his 
himian  feimily,  the  doctrine  of  a  Triune  God  is  not  only  abhon-ent  to 
the  principles  of  our  natm-e,  but  it  is  not  a  doctiine  of  revehtion. 
It  is  not  expressly  disclosed  in  the  Bible,  if,  indeed,  it  can  be  proved 
at  all  from  the  records  by  any  just  principles  of  interpretation.  Some 
Roman  Catholics  s;\y  that  it  cannot  be  demonstrated  from  Scripture, 
but  must  be  received  on  the  authority  of  the  church;  and  many 
orthodox  Protestants  grant,  that,  so  ilu:  from  being  clearly  revealed, 
it  can  only  be  inferred  from  the  comparison  of  one  passage  ^vith 
another.  It  is  reasoned  out  of  Sacred  Scripture.  But  reason  recoils 
at  the  doctrine,  and  Scripture  does  not  reveal  it. 

7.  The  Unity  of  God,  however,  is  the  basis  of  all  religion,  natural 
or  revealed.  It  is  the  express  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and  harmonizes 
with  the  highest  conceptions  which  we  can  form  of  the  great  First 
Cause.  From  the  one  Self-existent  have  all  other  beings  had  their 
origin  and  their  powers,  from  the  worm  up  to  the  arcliangel,  including 
Clirist  liimself.  So  say  tlie  most  enlightened  Trinitarians,  however 
inconsistent  they  may  be  in  their  specidations ;  and  hence  probably 
the  jxiuiful  emotions  of  tlioir  hearts  and  the  scepticism  of  their  under- 
stiindings  as  to  tlie  propriety  of  jxij  ing  supreme  homage  to  any  other 


PLAN  OF  THE  WORK.  21 

than  the  Lifiiiite  One,  without  regard  to  a  distinction  of  persons  in  the 
Deity,  —  to  any  other  tlian  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 

8.  The  best-beloved  Son  of  God,  the  unrivalled  Teacher,  the  highe:  t 
Image  of  the  divine  glory  and  goodness,  the  destined  Redeemer  of 
a  world  fettered  by  sin,  was,  in  his  nature  and  his  attributes,  in  his 
offices  on  earth  and  liis  functions  in  heaven,  inferior  to  the  Father,  the 
only  Self-existent  and  the  single  original  Cause  of  aU  things.  The 
true  grandeur  of  Christ's  character,  the  chief  dignity  of  his  person,  so 
far  as  it  has  been  taught  in  the  records  concerning  him,  lies  not  in 
his  having  assumed  to  himself  perfect  equality  with  his  Maker  and  his 
God,  for  such  a  notion  could  never  have  entered  for  a  moment  into 
his  humble  and  devout  mind,  —  but  in  accomphshing  the  great  and 
benevolent  work  to  which  he  was  appomted,  in  perfect,  unqualified 
dependence  on,  and  submission  to,  that  Being  whom  in  'his  prayers 
and  thanksgi\ings  he  addressed  as  "  the  Father  "  and  "  the  only  true 
God."  Many  Trinitaiians  have  acknowledged,  either  exjjlicitly  or 
impKcitly,  and  in  every  \'ariety  of  form,  the  entu-e  subordination  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  to  Almighty  God,  and  his  essential  as  well  as  official 
inferiority  to  him.  How  they  can  reconcile  such  notions  with  then* 
professed  belief  in  the  equality  of  Clirist  with  God,  it  is  not  for  us  to 
Bay ;  for  we  cannot  tell.  But  we  know  that  all  error  is  inconsistent 
with  itself,  and  we  thank  them  for  the  admissions  which  they  have 
made.  We  rejoice  that  they  thus  yield,  though  involuntarily  and 
imperfectly,  to  the  Unitarianism  of  the  Gospels,  and,  indeed,  of  the 
whole  New  Testament. 

9.  Among  the  numerous  significations  of  the  word  "  Spiiit "  in  the 
Bible,  it  is  an  acknowledged  fact,  that  in  a  host  of  passages  this  term, 
which  is  sometimes  intensified  in  its  import  by  being  changed  into 
the  phrases  "  Holy  Spirit "  and  "  Spirit  of  God,"  denotes  the  various 
influences  and  gifts  which  God  imparted  to  his  chosen  sei-vants; 
and,  in  a  few  cases,  signifies  God  himself,  without  any  reference  to 
hypostatical  or  personal  distinctions  in  the  Deity.     Al    Trinitarians 


22  INTRODUCTION. 

will  grant  these  facts ;  and  some  have  openly  confessed  that  there  are 
eertiiin  deficiencies  in  the  Scripture  evidence  for  a  third  person  in  tlie 
Godhead;  while  others  have  re2)resented  the  Holy  Ghost,  though 
according  to  them  entitled  to  all  the  attributes  of  the  Divuiity,  as 
deri\ing  liis  existence  and  his  powers  either  from  the  Father,  or  from 
the  Father  and  the  Son. 

In  thus  presenting  the  order  of  the  subjects  discussed  in  tliis 
volume,  we  have  mentioned  only  a  few  of  the  most  prominent  pomts ; 
but  they  are  all  intimately  related  to  each  other,  and  contain  the  gist 
of  what  seems  to  us  a  strong  presumptive  argiunent  against  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  To  unfold  and  apply  this  argiunent,  —  to 
take  up,  according  to  the  order  in  which  they  occur  in  the  Bible,  all 
the  texts  which  have  been  adduced  on  behalf  of  the  doctrine  of  a 
Triune  God,  or  of  the  Supreme  Di\inity  of  Christ  and  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  and,  by  the  assistance  of  the  most  learned  and  distinguished 
writers  in  orthodox  chiu-ches,  to  show  that  these  passages,  whether 
regarded  singly  or  in  combination  with  others,  afford  no  just  grounds 
for  believing  in  the  mysteries  of  Trinitarianism ;  that  the  principles 
of  criticism  and  interpretation  adopted  by  scholars  and  di\Tncs  are, 
at  least  in  particular  instances  and  applications,  essentiiilly  the  Sixme 
as  those  eniployed  by  Unitarians,  and  lead,  if  consistently  followed 
up,  to  a  recognition,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  terms,  of  the  grait 
Scripture  truths,  tliat  "  Jehorah  is  One,"  and  tJiat  the  Father  is 
"  the  only  true  God,"  —  to  do  tliis  would  be  a  work  requuing  several 
additional  volumes,  which  are  in  course  of  preparation,  imd  wliich  we 
intend,  at  some  future  time,  by  the  di\dne  blessing,  to  ky  before  the 
pubUc*  As  setting  forth  the  general  principles  on  wliich  the  whole 
argument  rests,  the  present  volume  may  be  regarded  as  complete, 
and  is  therefore  published  by  itselC 


•  In  the  "  Concessions  of  Trinitarians,"  which  the  writer  published  in  1842,  thli 
has  been  partially  done;  but,  tliat  work  being  out  of  print,  lie  is  now  occupied  in 
Increasing  it  to  such  an  extent  a.s  to  Justify  the  remark  made  above. 


PLAN   OF  THE  WORK.  23 

We  gi-eatly  mistake  if  the  lessons  inculcated  in  this  volume  by  so 
many  good  and  learned  men,  and  the  criticisms  and  comments  on 
certiiin  passtiges  of  Scripture  wluch  Avill  be  quoted  in  the  other  por- 
tions of  the  work  from  their  writings,  will  not  tend  to  prove,  that  in 
the  human  heart  of  Chiistendom,  though  choked  up  by  the  rubbish  of 
man's  de-\dce,  there  are  springs  of  pvtre  feeling  and  generous  thought 
wliich  now  and  then  bubble  up  and  flow  into  the  great  chamiel  of 
love  and  truth,  diffusing,  wherever  they  spread,  fertihty  and  happiness 
on  all  around ;  —  that,  notwithstanding  the  walls  of  partition  which 
have  been  erected  by  bigotry  and  narrow-minded  creeds  between  the 
followers  of  the  same  Lord  and  Master,  there  are  in  the  soul,  affec- 
tions, cherished  and  warmed  by  the  gospel,  which  overleap  these 
barriers,  and  attract  men  and  Christians  together ;  —  that  among  the 
corruptions  of  Christianity  and  the  diversities  of  sectaries,  there  still 
exist  the  stamina  of  evangehcal  truth;  that  there  are  principles  of 
religion  which  are  held  in  common  by  all  denominations,  however 
obscured  for  a  time  by  the  mists  of  error  and  the  fumes  of  strife ;  that 
these  pi-inciples  are  the  chief  glory  of  Christianity  and  of  Unitarianism ; 
and  that  the  day  is  arri^•ing,  though  in  the  eyes  of  the  present  genera- 
tion it  may  be  slow  in  its  approach,  when  the  dominion  of  bigotry 
will  wholly  cease ;  when  the  prayer  of  Jesus  for  catholic  imion  among 
his  disciples  will  be  answered ;  and  when,  instead  of  attributing  infalli- 
bility to  erring  men,  Supreme  Di\-inity  to  the  holy  but  humble  Son 
and  Servant  of  the  Most  High,  and  eternal  glory  and  honor  to  a 
Trinity  in  Unity  or  a  Unity  in  Trinity,  universal  Christendom  will  say, 
in  the  language  of  the  Apocalypse,  "  We  GIVE  THEE  thanks,  O 
Lord  God  Almightt,  a\'ho  akt,  and  wast,  and  akt  to  come! 

BECAUSE    thou    HAST    TAKEN    TO    THEE    THY    GREAT    POWER,    AND 
HAST  REIGNED." 


UNITARIAN  PHINCIPLES 


CONFIRMED    BT 


TRINITARIAN     TESTIMONIES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE    SPIRIT    OF    SECTARIANISM    INCONSISTENT    WITH    THE 
SPIRIT    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 


SECT.   L  —  THE  RELIGION  OF  JESUS  THAT  OF   LOVE. 

The  new  religion  —  final,  perfect,  pure  — 

Was  that  of  Christ  and  love.     His  great  command, 

His  all-sui&cing  precept,  —  was't  not  love  ? 

P.  J.  Bailkt. 

Christianity  is  a  gospel  of  peace  and  charity.  It  commands  us  to 
love  and  to  do  good  to  all  men,  even  our  very  enemies ;  to  bless  them 
that  curse  us,  to  do  good  to  them  that  hate  us,  and  to  pray  for  those 
that  despitefully  use  us  and  persecute  us.  And  can  those  be  its 
disciples  who  scatter  nothing  but  hatred  and  malice,  confusion  and 
disorder,  wherever  they  come,  and  make  it  a  matter  of  conscience  to 
root  out  and  destroy  from  off  the  earth  all  those  that  differ  from 

them  ? As  to  the  business  of  charity,  God  forbid  that  any 

differences  in  religion  whatever  .  .  .  should  ever  make  us  deny  that  to 
our  fellow-Christmns.  .  .  .  There  is  no  honest,  sincere  Christian,  how 
erroneous  soever  he  may  be,  but  what  at  least  is  persuaded  that  he 
is  in  the  right;  and  looks  upon  us  to  be  as  far  from  the  truth  by 
differing  from  liim,  as  we  esteem  him  for  not  agreeing  with  us.  Now 
Lf,  ujjon  the  sole  account  of  such  differences,  it  be  lawful  for  us  to  hate 
another,  we  must  for  the  very  s;xme  rcixson  allow  it  to  be  as  lawful  for 
him  also  to  h.ite  us.  Thus  shall  we  at  once  invert  the  characteristic 
of  our  religion,  "  By  this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples, 


26  TUE   REUGION   OF  JESLS  TUAT   OF   U)VE. 

if  ye  liave  love  one  to  another."  .  .  .  How  mucli  iiithcr  ought  we  to 
consider,  with  our  aj)o.stle,  the  love  of  oiu:  deai-  Muster  to  ns,  even 
wliilst  we  were  yet  liis  enemies,  and  love  those  whom  we  ought  to 
hoi)e,  notwithstanding  all  their  errors,  are  yet  still  lus  Mends ;  and  not 
think  those  imworthy  of  our  charity  whom  we  piously  presume  God 
will  not  tliink  unworthy  of  his  favor  ?  ...  If  they  are  mistiiken,  I  am 
siu-e  our  imcharitivbleness  is  not  the  way  to  con\ince  them  of  their 
er-;3r,  but  may  ratlier  indispose  them  to  consider  tiie  weiglit  of  our 
arguments  as  they  ouglit,  whilst  they  see  so  little  regard  in  our  atl'ec- 

tioiis  towards  them O  blessed  state  of  the  chiux;h  miUtiint  here 

on  earth !  —  the  glorious  antepast  of  that  peace  and  piety  which  God 
has  prepared  for  his  church  triumphant  in  heaven !  AVho  would  not 
wish  to  see  those  days  when  a  general  refonnation,  and  a  tnie  zeal, 
and  a  perfect  cliarity,  passing  through  the  world,  we  should  all  be 
united  in  the  same  faith,  the  same  worsliip,  the  siime  comnumion  and 
fellowship  one  vdth  another?  —  when,  all  pride  and  jjrcjudice,  all 
interests  and  designs,  being  submitted  to  the  honor  of  God  and  the 
discharge  of  our  duty,  the  Holy  Scriptures  shall  again  triumph  over 
the  vain  tiiiditions  of  men,  and  religion  no  longer  tivke  its  denomiiu- 
tion  from  little  sects  and  tactions,  but  we  shall  all  be  content  with  tlie 
vsame  common  primitive  names  of  Christbns  and  brethren,  and  live 
together  as  becomes  our  character,  m  brotherly  love  and  Christian 
charity  Avith  one  another  ?  —  Arciibishop  Wakk  :  Sermons  and 
Discourses,  pp.  102,  191-4,  202. 

1  must  liasten  to  recommend  to  you  another  thing  of  unspeakable 
importance  to  the  well-being  of  Christi;xn  society,  —  a  spirit  of  uni- 
versal love.  Let  not  bigotry  or  party-zeal  be  so  much  as  once  named 
amongst  you ;  for  it  becometh  not  Siiints.  Our  Lord  was  a  stranger 
to  it.  Whosoever  did  the  will  of  his  Father,  tiie  s;ime  was  his 
brother,  his  sister,  his  mother.  Wherever  he  saw  the  marks  of  true 
faith,  though  in  a  centiuion  or  a  SjroijhenicLm,  who  were  aliens  to  the 
commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers  to  the  covenant  of  promise, 
how  did  he  pubhsh  and  commend  it !  Be  followers,  then,  of  him,  my 
brethren,  as  dear  cliildren ;  and  love  all  who  love  our  I-ord  Jesus  in 
sinceritv  and  truth,  althougli  (hey  should  not  in  all  tilings  follow  with 
us.  .  .  .  Wiiy  should  not  the  children  of  God,  notwithstanding  tlieir 
little  differences,  unite  in  one  common  interest  agahist  s])iritual  wicked- 
nesses in  high  pLices?  Oh  tliat  all  who  call  thenisi-lves  Cln-istiins 
were  thus  minded !  —  George  Wiiitefield  :  Letter  to  the  Religioiia 
Societ'.ts  of  lln<^l(tnd ;  In  Works,  \o\.  iv.  pj).  21),  'M). 


THE  RELIGION   OF  JESUS   TIIAT  OF   LOVE.  27 

It  is  impossible  to  conceive  a  greater  contrast  between  the  spirit 
which  his  [Christ's]  instructions  breathe,  and  that  spirit  of  pride  and 
domination  which,  not  many  centm-ies  afterwards,  became  the  pre- 
dominant spirit  of  what  then  came  to  be  denominated  the  church. 
Again  and  again  did  Christ  admonish  his  apostles  and  other  followers 
to  live  as  brethren  and  equals,  nbt  to  affect  a  superiority  over  their 
fellow-disciples  or  over  one  another ;  inasmuch  as,  in  this,  his  king- 
dom would  ditfer  in  its  fundamental  maxims  from  all  the  kingdoms 
of  the  world;  that  that  person  alone  would  there  be  deemed  the 
greatest  whose  deportment  should  be  the  humblest,  and  he  alone 
superior  who  should  prove  most  serviceable  to  the  rest.  .  .  .  When 
the  disciples  privately  contended  among  themselves  who  should  be 
greatest,  he  took  occasion  to  warn  them  against  ambition. . . .  The  same 
maxims  were  warmly  inculcated  by  liis  apostles;  and  in  their  time, 
under  the  happy  influence  of  their  instructions,  generally  prevailed 
among  Christians.  —  Dr.  Geo.  Campbell  :  Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical 
History,  Lect.  2. 

Thus  you  see  [referring  to  Luke  xvii.  1^-19],  though  the  Jews 
iearnt  no  humility,  no  gratitude,  yet  the  Samaritan,  ignorant  as  he  was 
then  thought,  misinformed  as  he  is  now  reckoned  —  yet  the  Samaritan 
was  deeply  impressed  \vith  both.  The  Almighty  himself  taught  him, 
and  he  was  obedient  to  the  dinne  Instructor.  The  pride  of  religion 
would  make  the  Jews  brand  him  with  the  factious  name  of  heretic  or 
schismatic ;  but,  were  he  heretic  or  schismatic,  he  offered  to  heaven  as 
gi-ateful  a  sacrifice  as  was  ever  laid  on  the  altar  at  Jerusalem  by 
prophet  or  by  saint.  The  contentions  about  the  forms  of  religion 
destroy  its  essence.  Authorized  by  the  example  of  Jesus  Christ,  we 
will  send  men  to  the  Samaritan  to  find  out  how  to  worship.  Though 
your  church  was  pure,  Avithout  spot  or  imperfection,  yet,  if  your  heart 
is  not  txu-ned  to  God,  the  worship  is  hateful,  and  the  prayers  are  an 
abomination.  The  homage  of  the  darkest  Pagan,  worshipping  he 
knows  not  what,  but  still  worshipping  the  unknown  Power  that  formed 
him,  if  he  bows  with  humility,  if  he  praises  with  gratitude,  his  homage 
\d]l  ascend  grateful  to  heaven ;  while  the  dead,  careless  formality  of 
prayer,  offered  up  in  the  proudest  Christian  temples,  shall  be  rejected 
as  an  offering  unholy.  For  think  you  tliat  the  Almighty  esteeifts 
names  and  sects  ?  No :  it  is  the  heart  that  he  requires,  —  it  i'^  the 
heart  alone  that  he  accepts.  And  much  consolation  does  tliis  afford  to 
the  contem])lati\e  mind  of  man.  We  may  l)e  very  ignorant  in  spiritual 
matters,  if  that  ig-ior  xnce  caimot  be  removed,  and  yet  may  be  very 


28  THE  RELIGION   OF  JESUS  THAT  OF  LOVH. 

safe.  We  may  not  luiow  in  wliat  words  to  clothe  our  desires  in 
prajer,  or  where  to  find  language  wortliy  of  being  jjresented  to  tlie 
Majesty  of  heaven.  But,  aftiidst  the  clouds  that  surround  us,  here  is 
our  comfort:  In  every  nation,  he  that  worshippeth  with  humility, 
worshippeth  aright;  he  that  praiseth  with  gi-atitude,  praiseth  welL 
The  pride  of  estiiblishments  may  desjnse  liim ;  but  the  visdom  and  the 
rigliteousness  of  heaven  ^\'ill  heixr,  and  will  approve  liim.  It  was  to 
the  humble,  thanlcful  Samaritan,  though  separated  from  the  true 
church,  —  yes,  it  was  to  liim  alone,  because  he  alone  returned  to  glo- 
rify God,  —  tluit  Jesus  Christ  said,  "  Arise,  go  thy  way :  thy  faitli  hath 
made  tliee  whole."  Thus  in  a  moment  vanished,  and  became  of  no 
effect,  the  temple  of  the  Jews,  built  by  prophetic  direction ;  its  ritual, 
given  by  their  illuminated  legislator ;  all  gave  way  to  the  profound 
humility  and  the  sublime  gratitude  of  wliat  they  allied  an  unbeliever, 
—  of  wliat  Jesus  Christ  called  the  only  faithful  servant  of  God  among 
them.  —  riiEBKNDARY  CoMixGs,  of  St.  Patrick's,  Dublin :  Seniioiis 
on  the  Spiritual  Kingdom  of  the  Messiah. 

Dr.  Georp;c  Campbell,  frMn  whom  we  borrow  this  fine  extract,  savs,  iti 
his  work  on  Kcclesiastical  History,  that  the  sentiments  quoted  "  convey  an 
idea  of  the  church  truly  rational,  enlarged,  and  sublime;  such  as  strongly 
distinguishes  it  from  all  the  [)itiful  and  contracted  pales,  so  uncharitably 
erected  by  the  ditlerent  sectaries  of  all  known  denominations,  Popish  and 
Protestant,  established  and  unestablished.  For  it  is  not  a  legal  establishment, 
as  some  vainly  imagine,  or  any  thing  merely  external,  that  either  makes 
or  unmakes  a  sectary  in  the  Scriptural  sense:  it  is  solely  the  spirit  by  which 
a  man  is  actuated." 

Benevolence  is  the  great  principle  on  which  Christianity  is  foimded ; 
and  it  tends  equally  to  the  honor  of  religion,  and  the  adviuit;ige  of 
society,  that  Cluist  exacts  from  liis  disciples,  in  their  conduct  towards 
each  other,  the  same  illusti'ious  qiuhty  tliat  was  displayed  on  the  jxirt 
of  God  in  the  redemption  of  m;uikind.  The  impetuosity  of  wrath, 
the  bitterness  of  e\il-speaking,  and  the  cruelty  of  revenge,  ai-e 
peremiJtorily  forbidden  in  every  page  of  tlie  gospeL  Tliat  man  is 
tliere  pointed  out  by  the  sacred  writers  as  tlie  most  acceptiible  servimt 
of  Clirist,  who  cultivates  a  large  and  generous  love  towards  liis  fellow- 
creatures  ;  who  seeks  for  opportunities  of  doing  them  good ;  who 
diligently  retreats  from  ever)'  temptation  to  hijure  them;  and  wlio,  by 
a  Iwppy  uiuon  of  prudence  with  good-nature,  iives  pe;iceably  -with  all 

men If  you  would  act  up  to  the  spiiit  of  the  gospel, . . .  you  must 

not  suffer  the  love  of  yoiu:  neighbor  to  be  luirrowed  and  enfeebled  by 


THE  RELIGION  OF  JESUS  THAT  OF  LOVE.  29 

iny  fortuitous  circumstance  of  rank  or  locality  or  religious  persuasion. 
You  must  consider  acqiuiintances  and  strangers,  friends  and  foes, 
comitrjTnen  and  foreigners,  the  members  of  yoiu:  o\vn  and  every  other 
Christiim  community,  tne  followers  of  Confucius  and  Mahomet  as  well 
as  of  Chi'ist,  heretics  and  schismatics,  dogmatists  and  scejjtics,  mono- 
theists  and  polytheists,  the  enlightened  and  peaceful  inhabitant  of 
towns  in  a  civilized  society  and  the  wild  savage  roaming  for  his  prej 
through  the  trackless  forest,  the  sceptered  monarch  and  the  humble 
cottager,  —  you  must  consider  all  of  them  as  forming  one  great  flock, 
pLiced  here  in  one  spacious  fold,  under  one  good  Shepherd,  who,  in  his 
own  good  time  and  for  his  o\vn  good  purposes,  AviU  hereafter  separate 
the  better  from  the  worse,  and  consign  them  to  their  proper  stations, 
according  to  the  measm-e  which  he  only  can  know  of  their  respective 
merits  and  demerits.  —  Dr.  Samuel  Parr  :  Sermon  on  Rom.  xiL  18, 
and  Serman  on  the  Two  Commatidments ;  in  Works,  vol.  vi.  pp.  679, 
and  364-5. 

It  is  delightful  to  meet  with  sentiments  so  just  and  beautiful  as  these,  — 
with  principles  of  candor  so  fraught  with  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  —  with  views 
of  humanity  so  accordant  with  the  whole  genius  of  the  Christian  faith. 

Let  truth  be  shrined  in  argument ;  for  this  is  its  appropriate  glory. 
And  it  is  a  sore  disparagement  inflicted  upon  it  by  the  hand  of 
vindictive  theologians,  when,  instead  of  this,  it  is  shrined  in  anathema, 
or  brandished  as  a  weapon  of  dread  and  of  destruction  over  the  heads 
of  all  who  are  compelled  to  do  it  homage.  The  terrible  denuncia- 
tioas  of  Athanasius  have  not  helped  —  they  have  injured  the  cause. 
The  Godhead  of  Christ  is  not  thus  set  forth  in  the  New  Testament. 
It  is  nowhere  proposed  in  the  shape  of  a  mere  dictatorial  article,  or  as 
a  naked  dogma,  for  the  understanding  alone ;  and  at  one  place  it  is 
introduced  as  an  episode  for  the  enforcement  of  a  moral  virtue.  In 
tliis  famous  passage  [Phil.  iL  3 — 8],  the  practical  lesson  occupies  the 
station  of  principal,  as  the  main  or  capital  figure  of  the  piece;  and 
the  doctrine  on  which  so  many  would  effervesce  all  their  zeal,  even  to 
exhaustion,  stands  to  it  but  in  the  relation  of  a  subsidiary.  ...  In  these 
verses,  there  is  a  collateral  lesson  for  our  faith;  but  the  chief,  the 

direct  lesson  is  a  lesson  of  charity,  which  is  greater  than  faith We 

protest,  by  the  meekness  and  the  gentleness  of  Christ ;  by  the  tears 
of  him  who  wept  at  Lazarus'  tomb,  and  over  the  approaching  ruin  of 
Jerusalem ;  by  every  word  of  blessing  that  he  uttered,  and  by  every 
footstep  of  this  wondro  is  visitor  over  the  sur&ce  of  a  land  on  wliicb 

3* 


30  THE  RELIGION   OF  JESUS   TUAT   OF   T.OVE. 

he  went  about  doing  good  continually,  —  we  protest  in  the  name  of 
all  these  unequivocal  demonstrations,  tliat  they  do  liim  an  injustice 
who  propound  this  message  [the  gospel  message]  in  any  other  way 
than  as  a  message  of  friendship  to  our  species.  He  came  not  to 
condemn,  but  to  save ;  not  to  destroy,  but  to  keep  aUve.  —  1)R.  Tiios. 
Chalmers  :  Select  Works,  voL  iii.  pp.  260-1,  263,  New  York  edition. 

From  the  beautiful  sentiments  here  set  forth,  it  is  evident,  tliat,  strongly 
attaclied  as  this  good  and  gi-eat  man  was  to  Calvinistic  and  Trinitarian 
theology,  Dr.  Chalmers  regarded  the  virtues  of  meekness  and  humility, 
exemplified  by  Jesus  Christ  and  recommended  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  as  of 
far  higher  importance  than  a  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Supreme  Deity; 
and  that  he  felt  no  sympathy  with  that  spirit  of  exclusiveness  and  of 
deimiiciation  which  has  so  often  impregnated  the  "  Orthodoxy "  of  his 
church.  In  passing,  however,  it  may  be  remarked,  that  his  interpretation 
of  Paul's  language  is  founded  on  a  misconception  of  its  meaning.  Thia 
will  be  shown  under  Phil.  ii.  6,  in  a  succeeding  volume. 

Instead  of  imbibing,  countenancing,  or  warranting  intolerance  and 
bigotr)-,  he  [Christ]  taught,  in  all  instances,  their  odiousness  and  guilt ; 
and  epjoined,  with  respect  to  every  subject  and  person,  the  most 
absolute  moderation,  liberality,  and  candor ;  not,  indeed,  the  fashionable 
liljcrahty  of  licentious  men  in  modem  times,  —  a  professed  indifference 
to  truth  and  holiness,  but  a  benevolent  and  cathoUc  spirit  towards 
every  man,  and  a  candid  and  just  one  to^vards  eveiy  argument  and 
opinion.  Distinctions  of  nations,  sects,  or  party,  as  such,  were  to  him 
nothing :  distinctions  of  truth  and  flilsehood,  right  and  WTong,  were  to 
him  every  thmg.  According  to  this  scheme,  he  framed  liis  instruc- 
tions and  his  life;  and  the  same  catholic  spirit  and  freedom  from 
intolerance  characterize  the  writings  of  his  ajiostles.  —  T.  Hartwell 
HoRXE :  Introduction  to  Ifie  Holy  Scriptures,  vol.  i.  p.  167, 

Christianity  itself  condemns  as  decisively  tlie  evil  temijcrs  generated 
by  religious  disagreements,  as  it  condemns  any  other  immorahties; 
clearly,  itself  is  a  reUgion  of  love  and  meekness;  and  moreover  it 
contiins  (however  little  they  have  hitherto  been  regarded)  sufficient 
and  \er\'  precise  provisions,  securing  to  Christuuis  liberty  of  conscience, 
while  cordial  fellowship  is  not  disturbed.  The  religion  of  Christ 
should  therefore  l)ear  none  of  the  blune  accruing  from  reUgious 
Rtrifes.  —  Isaac  Taylor:  Lectures  on  Spiritual  Christianity,  p.  182, 
New  York  edition. 

True  love  seeketh  not  its  own.  It  rejoices  in  the  truth,  by  whom- 
soever professed  or  disseminated.     If  Christ  is  preached,  whether  is 


THE  RELIGION   OF  JESUS   THAT   OP   LOVE.  31 

pretence  or  in  truth,  it  rejoices,  yea,  and  Avill  rejoice.  It  does  not 
rebulvC  a  man  because  he  prefers  to  labor  in  a  field  different  from  that 
of  liis  neighbor,  or  cut  down  the  spiritual  harvest  with  a  dificrerit 
implement,  or  wear  a  costvune  somewhat  plainer  or  more  costly.  It 
does  not  meet  the  report  cS'  a  Aictory  in  the  Christian  cause  with  cold 
indifference,  or  with  a  hesitating  approval,  till  it  has  first  learned  what 
particular  sect  has  the  agency,  or  will  receive  the  benefit.  It  nobly 
overlooks  all  such  tilings.  It  plants  itself  on  no  such  narrow  grounds. 
Its  object  is  not  to  make  proselytes,  but  to  save  souls ;  not  to  count 
up  converts  to  this  or  that  dogma,  but  to  honor  the  Redeemer  of  the 
world.  Wherever,  in  whomsoever,  it  can  discern  the  Hneaments  of 
bis  blessed  image,  it  welcomes  him  to  communion,  and  rejoices  in  his 
prosperity.  This  is  the  spirit  of  Christ  and  of  his  apostles,  unless  the 
New  Testament  is  wholly  misinterpreted.  In  proportion  as  you  love 
the  cause  of  Christ  as  such,  you  may  beheve  that  your  love  is  sincere, 
and  Avill  stand  the  kst  fiery  test.  Li  proportion  as  it  is  concerned 
with  a  sect  as  such,  and  pom's  out  all  its  sjTnpathy  on  its  own  pecuHar 
and  selected  friends,  may  its  genuineness  be  questioned.  To  confine 
your  affections  to  one  branch  of  the  true  church  may  be  a  proof  of 
spiuious  love,  as  it  certainly  is  of  a  narrow  imderstanding.  It  may  be 
the  evidence  of  an  arrogant  Pharisaism,  rather  than  of  a  Christian 
temper.  The  spirit  of  Christ  was  sympathizing,  conciliatory,  all- 
embracing.  He  never  turned  coldly  away  because  a  suppliant  was  a 
poor  Sp'ophenician.  He  did  not  resign  the  heterodox  Samaritan  to 
the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God-  —  Bela  B.  Edwakds  :  Writings, 
vol.  i.  ])p.  455-6. 

Since  the  days  of  our  Lord's  personal  ministry,  his  disci])les  have 
altered  the  shibboleth  of  Christianity.  The  test-question  is  not  now, 
"  Simon  Peter,  lovest  thou  me  ?  "  but,  "  Simon  Peter,  thinJvest  thou  as 
I  do  ?  "  Unless  the  answer  be  clearly  and  decidedly  affirmative,  there 
is  but  cold  welcome  to  the  Master's  vineyard :  no  excellence  of  jiiety  is 
a  sufficient  offset  to  variant  o])inions,  even  about  tilings  the  most  ab- 
struse and  difficult  of  determination.  No  superiority  of  understanding 
compensates,  in  its  admirable  conclusions,  for  unkiAvful  speculations 
upon  subjects  concerning  which  men  have  done  Httle  else  than  specu- 
late from  the  beginnings  of  thought.  "  Venerable  Bede,"  sajs  John 
Ne\rton,  "  after  giving  a  liigli  character  of  some  contemporary,  adds, 
'  But,  unhappy  man,  he  did  not  keep  Easter  our  way.'  "  —  Dr.  T.  E. 
Bond,  Jun. :  Methodist  (Quarterly  Review  for  April,  1853 ;  4th  series, 
vol  V.  p.  256. 


32  THE  RELIGION  OF  JESUS   TUAT   OF  LOVB. 

Is  it  toci  much  to  ask  such  persons  [as  would  abjure  the  union  of 
Christ  i;xns  on  any  other  terms  thin  those  of  perfect  identity  of  opinion 
with  themselves]  to  phee  themselves  in  company  with  their  dinne 
Lord,  and  to  follow  him  through  all  the  scenes  of  his  incarnation,  for 
the  purpose  of  asking  from  what  action,  or  from  what  expression, 
they  can  feel  autliorized  to  trei^t  vnth.  hostility,  and  to  reject  with 
scorn,  the  efforts  that  are  being  made  to  strengthen  the  bonds  of 
brotherhood  between  his  disciples  ?  Is  it  from  his  Sennon  upon  the 
Blount,  when  he  poured  his  benediction  upon  the  peace-makers,  and 
called  them  the  children  of  God  ?  Is  it  from  his  frequent  rebukes  to 
his  too  litigious  followers?  Is  it  fi-om  liis  conversation  with  the 
woman  of  Samaria,  and  his  labors  on  that  occasion,  among  a  people 
hated  and  shunned  by  his  o-wn  kincb-ed?  Is  it  fi-om  his  inimitable 
parable  of  the  good  Samaritan  ?  Is  it  from  his  reproof  of  the  dis- 
tempered zeal  of  his  disciples,  who  would  have  stopped  the  man  that 
cast  out  demons,  because  he  followed  not  them?  Is  it  from  his 
forbearance  with  his  apostles,  under  their  cloudy  a])prehensions  of 
his  doctrine  and  his  will,  their  impiu'e  motives,  and  their  defective 
sanctity  ?  How  wide  the  interval  whidi  separated  his  religious  know- 
ledge and  atfciinments  from  those  of  his  disciples  !  —  he,  the  fountain 
of  illumination ;  they,  encompassed  with  infirmities :  but  did  he  recede 
from  them  on  that  account  ?  No :  he  drew  closer  the  bond  of  union, 
imjxirted  successive  streams  of  effulgence,  till  he  incoi-porated  his 
spirit  with  theirs,  and  elevated  them  into  a  nearer  rescnlilance  of 

himself. Is  there,  notwithstiuiding  our  differences,  a  principle 

known,  —  a  prlncijjle  att;\imxble  by  us  all,  —  a  jjrinciple  which  is  an 
integral  part  of  our  religion,  —  a  principle  which,  if  it  were  more 
cultivated  and  in  full  exercise,  would  sul)jugate  all  tliat  is  low  and 
selfisli  and  malevolent  in  our  nature ;  and  which,  while  it  filled  our 
own  bosom  with  peace,  would  give  us  jieace  with  our  fellow-Cliristians 
of  every  name  ?  Tliere  is.  It  is  Love,  —  holy  love,  —  heaveidy  love,  — 
Clu-istian  love.  But  where  is  it  to  be  found  ?  In  the  heart  of  CJod,  in 
the  bosom  of  Jesus,  in  the  minds  of  migels,  in  the  spirits  of  just  men 
made  perfect,  and  in  the  pages  t)f  the  New  Testiiment,  we  know ;  but 
where  on  earth  shall  we  find  it  ?  It  ought  to  be  seen  in  beauty  and 
in  vigor  in  the  church  of  Christ:  this  is  built  to  be  its  mansion, 
and  for  its  residence.  But  liow  little  is  it  to  be  found  in  this  its 
own  and  aj^jjropriated  al)ode !  —  John  Axgkll  Jamks  :  Union  in 
relidion  to  tlie  lietlf^ioii-ii  Parties  of  England ;  in  Essays  on  Christian 
Utiion,  pp.  206-7,  217-8. 


THE  RELIGION  OF  JESUS   THAT   OF  LOVE.  33 

His  [Christ's]  most  distinct  command  was  to  love  all  mankind ; 
which  obligation,  on  oiir  part,  he  gi'ounded  upon  the  imiversal  love  of 
the  Father  ui  heaven,  who  makes  his  sun  to  shine  equally  upon  all 
nations,  and  sends  his  rain  as  plentifully  upon  those  who  are  nj,)st 
benighted  or  deformed  by  \ice,  as  upon  those  who  are  decorated  with 
the  fairest  virtues.  The  neighbor  to  be  loved  as  one's  self  was  every 
man  Avithout  exception ;  and,  by  thus  representing  love  to  the  weakest 
and  most  unworthy  of  mankind,  in  connection  with  love  to  the 
Almighty  Father  in  heaven,  as  the  substance  of  all  morality,  our  Lord 
entirely  and  for  ever  aboUshed  all  party  considerations  in  respect  to 
distinction  of  family,  rank,  nation,  and  religion.  .  .  .  Christ  appeiired  on 
earth  invested  with  subhme  and  holy  doctrines,  which  he  labored  to 
impart,  not  to  sects  and  sectaries,  but  to  univex'sal  man.  —  E.  L. 
Magoon  :  Republican  Christianity,  pp.  303-5. 


By  introducing  these  and  other  extracts  on  behalf  of  a  spirit  which  would 
embrace  within  its  grasp  all  sincere  Christians  of  whatever  name  or  belief, 
and  which  would  not  dare  appropriate  to  any  one  particular  sect  the  pos- 
session of  all  truth  and  all  saving  faith,  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  others, — 
we  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  implying  that  Trinitarianisni  is  in  itself, 
or  apart  from  the  doctrines  with  which  it  is  usually  connected,  naturally 
and  necessarily  productive  of  an  arrogant  or  illiberal  demeanor  towards  its 
opponents.  Ail  that  we  mean  to  indicate  is,  that,  though  the  unchristian 
and  anticatholic  spirit  has  been  too  frequently  allied  with  the  profession 
of  Trinitarianism,  its  best  friends  are  united,  in  heart  and  purpose,  with  its 
greatest  foes,  in  proclaiming  Christianity  to  be  a  religion  of  perfect  freedom 
and  universal  love. 

Nor  are  we  so  foolish  as  to  imagine,  that,  by  any  selection  of  extracts  from 
the  writings  of  good  men,  v^^e  could  prove  the  religion  of  Jesus  to  be  pre- 
eminently a  religion  of  love.  The  nominal  disciples  of  Christ  may,  indeed, 
show,  in  their  conversations  and  their  lives,  that  they  have  not  yet  learned 
the  lesson  of  human  brotherhood;  and,  in  justification  of  their  unbelief,  the 
enemies  of  Christianity  may  point  the  finger  of  scorn  at  the  animosities  and 
strifes  of  sectarians,  and  say,  "  Behold !  these  are  the  fruits  of  your  religion." 
But  no  one  who  opens  the  New  Testament  can  avoid  seeing  on  almost  every 
page,  written  in  characters  of  light,  the  glorious  doctrine  of  the  fraternity  of 
all  God's  children.  If  the  reader  of  the  gospel  records  be  blind  to  this  blessed 
truth,  no  mere  authority  and  no  mode  of  reiisoning  will  convince  him  of  it. 
We  make  the  extracts,  therefore,  not  for  this  purpose,  but  to  exhibit  the 
inconsistencies  of  Christians  so  called,  and  to  urge  them,  by  considering 
the  mercies  of  God,  the  benign  spirit  of  the  Master  whom  thej'  profoss  to 
serve,  and  their  own  solemn  responsibilities,  to  give  no  countenance,  bv  the 
chorishing  and  manifestation  of  uncharitable  dispositions,  to  the  inference 
of  the  unbeliever,  that  Christianity  cannot  be  a  revelation  from  heavet». 


34  TRUE   AND   FALSE  ZEAL   CONTRASTEU 


SECT.  II.  —  TRUE  ZE.VL  ACCOMP.\XIED  BT  A  SPIRIT  OF  WISDOM,  LO\T, 
AND  HUMILITY;  FALSE  ZEAL,  BY  AN  IGNORANT,  XJNCHARITABLE, 
DOMINEERLNG,  AND  PERSECUTING  SPIRIT. 

Love  talks  with  better  knowledge,  and  knowledge  with  dearer  love. 

SUAKSPEARE. 

When  we  would  convince  men  of  any  error  by  the  strength  of 
truth,  let  us  withal  pour  the  sweet  balm  of  love  upon  their  heads. 
Truth  and  love  are  two  the  most  powerful  things  in  the  world ; 
and,  when  they  both  go  together,  they  cannot  easily  be  ■withstood. 
The  golden  beams  of  truth  and  the  silken  cords  of  love,  twisted 
together,  will  draw  men  on  with  a  sweet  violence,  whether  they  will 
or  no  Let  us  bike  heed  we  do  not  sometimes  call  that  zeal  for  God 
and  his  gospel,  which  is  nothing  else  but  our  own  tempestuous  and 
stormy  passion.  True  zeal  is  a  sweet,  heavenly,  and  gentle  flame, 
which  maketh  us  active  for  God,  but  always  mthin  the  sphere  of  love. 
It  never  cxlls  for  fire  from  heaven  to  consume  those  that  differ  a  little 
from  us  in  their  apj)reheiisions.  It  is  like  that  kind  of  lightning, 
wliich  the  philosophers  spe;dv  of,  that  melts  the  sword  witliin,  but 
singetli  not  the  scabbard :  it  strives  to  save  the  soul,  but  liurtetli  not 
the  body.  True  zeal  is  a  loving  thing,  and  m;ikes  us  ahvays  active  to 
edifiaition,  and  not  to  destruction.  .  .  .  True  zeal  is  an  tgnts  lambens, 
a  soft  and  gentle  flame,  that  \vill  not  scorch  one's  kind  :  it  is  no 
pred  itory  or  voracious  thing.  But  carnal  and  fleshly  zeal  is  like  the 
spirit  of  gunpowder  set  on  fire,  that  tears  and  blows  up  all  that  sUuids 
before  it.  .  .  .  Let  this  soft  and  silken  knot  of  love  tie  our  hearts 
together ;  though  our  heads  and  ajJijrehensions  cannot  meet,  as  indeed 
they  never  will,  but  always  sfcind  at  some  distixnce  off"  from  one  another. 
Our  zeal,  if  it  be  heavenly,  if  it  be  true  vest;il  fire  kindled  from  above, 
will  not  delight  to  tiirry  here  below,  burning  up  straw  and  stubble  and 
sucli  combustil)le  things,  and  sending  up  notliing  but  gross  and  earthy 
fumes  to  heaven ;  but  it  will  rise  up,  and  return  back  pure  as  it  came 
down,  and  will  be  ever  stri\ing  to  cxiTy  up  men's  he;\rts  to  God  along 
with  it.  It  will  be  only  occupied  about  the  promoting  of  those  things 
which  are  unquestionably  good ;  and,  when  it  moves  in  the  irascible 
way,  it  will  quarrel  with  nothing  but  sin.  —  Dli.  Kalpii  Cudworth; 
Sermon  I.  aypended  to  the  Intellectual  Sijstem  of  Hie  Universe,  voL  iL 
pp.  oli-o 


TRUE  AND  FALSE  ZEAL  CONTRASTED.  35 

1  luiow  those  tlut  would  draw  you  into  such  a  contentious  zeal 
will  tell  you,  that  their  cause  is  the  cause  of  God,  and  tkit  you  desert 
him  and  betray  it  if  you  be  not  zealous  in  it ;  and  that  it  is  but  the 
counsel  of  flesh  and  blood  which  maketh  you  pretend  moderation  and 
peace ;  and  that  it  is  a  sign  that  you  are  hj'jjocrites,  that  are  so  lulte- 
warm,  and  carnally  comply  with  eiTor ;  and  that  the  cause  of  God  is 
to  be  followed  Avith  the  greatest  zeal  and  self-denial.  And  all  this 
is  true,  if  you  be  but  sure  that  it  is  indeed  the  cause  of  God,  and  that 
the  gi'eater  works  of  God  be  not  neglected  on  such  pretences,  and 
that  your  zeal  be  much  greater  for  faith  and  charity  and  miity  than  for 
your  opinions.  But,  upon  great  experience,  I  must  tell  you,  thatj  of 
the  zealous  contenders  in  the  world  that  cry  up  "  the  cause  of  God 
and  truth,"  there  is  not  one  of  very  many,  that  understandeth  what  he 
talks  of;  but  some  of  them  cry  up  the  cause  of  God,  when  it  is  a  brat 
of  a  proud  and  ignorant  brain,  and  such  as  a  judicious  person  would 

be  ashamed  of. Zeal  \vithout  judgment  hath  not  only  entangled 

souls  in  many  heinou^sins,  but  hath  ruined  churches  and  kingdoms ; 
and,  under  pretence  of  exceeding  others  in  doing  good,  it  makes  men 
the  greatest  instruments  of  e\dL  There  is  scarce  a  sin  so  great  and 
odious,  but  ignorant  zeal  will  make  men  do  it  as  a  good  work.  Chiist 
told  his  disciples,  that  those  that  killed  them  should  think  they  did 
God  service ;  and  Paul  bare  record  to  the  murderous,  persecuting  Jews, 
"  that  they  had  a  zeal  of  God,  but  not  according  to  knowledge."  — 
RiCH.\RD  Baxter  :  Practical  Works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  130-1,  327. 

"The  temple  of  the  Lord,"  said  the  Jews,  as  we  read  in  Jere- 
miah, —  "  The  temple  of  the  Lord,  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  are 
these."  In  the  same  spirit  do  some  of  our  contemporaries  exclaim, 
"  The  gospel,  the  gospel,  the  gospel  of  Jesus,  is  here,  and  here  only." 
Perhaps,  my  brethren,  it  were  mikind  and  uncourteous  to  apply  to 
these  misguided  declaimers  those  indignant  terras  in  which  Jei'emiah 
speaks  of  his  comitr}Tnen,  "  Trust  not  m  hing  words."  But  I  cannot 
be  charged  with  indecorum  or  harshness,  when  I  recommend  to  these 
accusers  of  my  ecclesiastical  brethren  a  little  more  charity  to  their 
fellow-Christians,  and  a  Uttle  more  distrust  in  themselves ;  and  much 
more  dlscij)line  from  knowiedge,  as  the  correction  of  headstrong  zeal 

and  frantic  enthusiasm The  pride  wiiich  generates  impatience 

of  contradiction  upon  points  which  have  long  exercised  our  intellectual 
fiiculties,  and  wiiich  we  often  conceive  to  be  intrinsically  of  higher 
moment,  because  we  had  been  accustomed  to  meditate  upon  them, 
and  to  contend  for  them;  the  fondness  wiiich  we  insensii))v  contract 


3G  TRUE   AND   FALSE  ZHUl.  CONTRASTKD. 

for  certain  formuhries  of  religious  belief,  and  certain  modes  of  religious 
ceremonies ;  the  dreul  which  we  feel  of  fickleness  and  lukewarmness 
in  what  we  tliink  the  Ciiuse  of  Heaven,  w^hen  it  was  really  the  cause 
of  our  own  prepossessions,  our  own  antipathies,  our  own  creduhty, 
and  our  own  ignorance,  —  all  these  circumstances  may  lead  us  into 
measures  which  a  well-directed  and  well-disciplined  conscience  would 
represent  to  us  as  injurious  to  the  best  interests  of  society,  and  adverse 
to  the  plainest  and  soundest  principles  of  A-irtue  and  religion.  To  his 
own  Master,  say  those  principles,  let  every  religionist  stand  or  fall 
while  the  Master  is  not  man,  but  God ;  and,  as  to  the  glory  of  God, 
surely  his  perfections,  his  moral  government,  and  his  revealed  will, 
never  will  permit  us  to  beUeve  that  it  is  promoted  by  injury  to  persons 
who  are  the  objects  of  his  care  as  a  Creator,  a  Redeemer,  and  a 
Sanctifier.  The  glory  of  God,  indeed,  as  we  learn  from  history,  has 
been  the  avowed  justification  of  the  most  flagrant  enormities.  For 
the  glory  of  God,  and  the  law  given  by  him  to  Moses,  the  Jewish 
ral)l)le,  decoyed  and  goaded  by  the  Jewish  priesthood,  dragged  tlie 
blessed  Jesus  to  the  cross ;  inflicted  upon  the  meek  and  pious  Stejihen 
the  most  barbarous  \-iolence ;  caused  an  execrable  conspiracy  of  forty 
zealots  to  bind  themselves  by  an  oath,  th;it  they  would  neither  eat  nor 
drink  till  they  had  slain  Paul ;  subjected  liim  to  a  long  and  comfort- 
less imprisonment  at  liome ;  and  brought  upon  the  noble  army  of 
primitive  martyrs  all  the  miseries  of  dungeons,  chains,  tortures,  and 
death.  For  the  glory  of  God,  Mahomet  raised  the  standard,  maddened 
his  illiterate  and  sanguinary  followers  mth  the  wildost  fi'enzj-  in  the 
defence  of  the  Divine  Unity,  and  spread  around  him  the  most  hideous 
desolation.  For  the  glory  of  God  were  undertxken  tliose  frantic 
crusades  which  for  a  long  time  agitited  the  Christian  world,  and  have 
left  behind  them  the  most  frightful  traces  of  superstition,  intolerance 
plunder,  and  bloodshed.  For  the  glory  of  God,  the  bigot,  as  I  tola 
you,  whether  a  llomanist  or  ProtesUuit,  has  consigned  many  a  studious, 
virtuous,  and  devout  Christian  to  the  flames.  The  glory  of  God  incited 
Anabaptists  and  other  fiuiatics  to  trample  ujjon  the  authority  of  laws, 
and  to  convulse  well-founded  and  well-administered  governments  with 
all  the  tumults  of  sedition,  and  all  the  atrocities  of  cai-iuge.  Yet  the 
bewildered  imagination  and  infuriate  j)assions  of  these  self-a])pointed 
cliampions  for  the  honor  of  their  Maker,  pushed  them  onward  from 
one  outrage  to  another,  not  merely  without  the  strong  rejjroach,  but 
with  tlie  prompt,  Uvt-ly,  and  full  apjirobation,  of  their  perverted  con- 
sciences. —  UlJ.  Samuki,  rAliK:   }Vorks,  vol.  v.  pj).  Ill)  and  472— t. 


TRUE  AND  FALSE  ZEAL  CONTRASTED.  37 

Men  may  differ  from  each  other  in  many  rehgious  opinions,  and 
yet  all  may  retain  the  essentials  of  Clmstianity ;  men  may  sometimes 
eagerly  cUspute,  and  yet  not  differ  much  from  one  another.  The  rigor- 
ous persecutors  of  eri'or  should  therefore  enlighten  then*  zeal  with 
knowledge,  and  temper  their  orthodoxy  Avith  charity ;  —  that  charity 
without  which  orthodoxy  is  vain ;  charity  that  "  thinketh  no  evil,"  but 
"  hopeth  all  tilings "  and  "  endm-eth  all  thhigs."  —  Dr.  Samuel 
Johnson  :  Life  of  Browne ;  in  Works,  voL  ix.  p.  298. 

It  is  greatly  to  be  feared,  that  religious  controversialists  are  often 
under  the  influence  of  pride,  emy,  and  a  contentious  disposition,  which 
they  and  their  admbers  mistake  for  the  warm  glow  of  a  pure  zeal.  I 
am  led  to  draw  this  unfavorable  conclusion  from  the  vehemence  and 
acrimony  of  then*  language.  The  love  of  truth  operates  indeed,  steadily 
and  uniformly,  but  not  violently.  It  is  the  love  of  victory  and  supe- 
riority which  sharpens  the  style.  The  desii-e  of  literary  fame,  of 
becoming  the  patron  or  leader  of  a  sect,  of  silencing  the  voice  of  oppo- 
sition, usually  inspires  that  eagerness  and  warmth  of  temper  which  it  is 
not  natm-al  that  the  truth  or  fixLsehood  of  any  specuktive  opuiion  should 
excite.  —  Vicesimus  Knox  :  Sermons ;  in  Works,  voL  \\.  p.  249. 

ReHgious  charity  requires  that  we  should  not  judge  any  set  of 
Christians   by  the   representations   of  their   enemies   alone,  without 

hearing  and  reading  wliat  they  have  to  say  in  their  own  defence 

Some  men  cannot  miderstand  how  they  are  to  be  zealous,  if  they  are 
amdid,  in  religious  matters.  But  remember  tlmt  the  Scriptm'es 
carefully  distinguish  between  laudable  zeal  and  indiscreet  zeal.  . . .  The 
object  is  to  be  at  the  same  time  pious  to  God,  and  charitable  to  man ; 
to  render  your  own  fiiith  as  pm-e  and  perfect  as  possible,  not  only 
without  hati-ed  of  those  who  differ  from  jou,  but  with  a  constant 
recollection,  that  it  is  possible,  m  spite  of  thought  and  study,  that  you 
may  have  been  misUiken ;  that  other  sects  may  be  right ;  and  that  a 
zeal  in  his  serrice,  which  God  does  not  want,  is  a  very  bad  excuse 
for  those  bad  passions  which  liis  sacred  word  condemns.  —  Sydney 
Smith:  Sermon  on  Christian  Charity ;  in  Works,  pp.  308,  310. 

We  have  a  well-authentiovted  statement  respecting  an  orthodox 
professor  of  Christianity,  who  declined  to  assist  a  neighbor's  family 
involved  in  distress,  on  the  gi'ound  of  the  heterodoxy  of  a  member  of 
that  family.  Tlrat  tendency  in  our  fallen  natui-e  which  induces  us 
to  place  reliance  on  a  doctrinal  creed  or  on  a  zealous  temperament^  to 
the  neglect  of  humane  sentiments  and  of  a  generous  dispasition,  is  the 
reason  why  the   apostles   so   earnestly  admonish   theii-  disciples   on 

4 


38  TRUE  AXD  FALSE  ZEAL  CONTRASTED. 

the  subject.  Nearly  allied  to  this  disposition,  and  perhaps  a  result 
of  it,  is  candor  in  judgment,  —  a  habit  of  putting  a  charitable  con- 
struction upon  the  motives  of  our  fellow-men  ;  the  absence  of  bigotry 
and  cxclusiveness ;  a  resolute  determliution  to  judge  of  books,  of 
systems  of  knowledge,  and  of  men,  with  discriminating  kindness.  ]N*o 
one  ought  to  be  considered  as  eminently  pious,  who  is  rash  and 
overbearing  in  liis  moral  or  literary  judgments.  If  his  piet}'  does  not 
enter  into  and  control  these  matters,  it  is  one-sided  and  partial.  .  .  . 
These  illiberal  judgments  and  uncourteous  feehngs  are  intimately 
connected  ^vith  a  narrow  miderstanding  and  with  conhned  intellectiuil 
opinions.  The  natm-al  tendency  of  enLirged  views,  and  of  extensive 
and  patient  readmg,  is  to  break  do\vn  the  barriers  of  party,  and  of  a 
selfish  bigotry,  while  it  refines  and  ennobles  the  soul.  —  Bela  B. 
Edwards  :  Writings,  vol.  ii.  pp.  479-80. 

True  reUgion  imparts  to  the  mind  all  those  ideas  tliat  are  fitted 
most  potently  to  stir  the  heart  of  maru  ...  It  kindles  and  perpetually 
feeds  tliat  wise  zeal  which  has  a  gi';isp,  breadth,  and  elevation,  of  which 
mere  sectarian  selfishness  is  destitute,  because  not  possessing  the  self- 
denying  heroism  and  aftection  of  which  true  greatness  is  always  formed- 
.  .  .  Christianity  is  not  merely  that  indolent  good  natiu-e  wliich  often 
steals  the  name  of  philanthropy,  but  the  supernatural  fire  that  flashed 
transforming  ideas  on  the  brain  of  Paul  as  he  journeyed  to  Damascus, 
and  poured  still  more  celestial  revelations  on  his  heart ;  rousing  divine 
yearnings  that  bigotry  had  smothered,  and  miseaUng  that  fountain  of 
charity  toward  all  which  theologiciil  thorns  tend  so  much  to  choke, 
and  which  partisan  bitterness  Is  siue  to  destroy.  —  E.  L.  AL\GOOX : 
Republican  Christianity,  pp.  321-2. 

A  schismatic  spirit  often  insidiously  puts  on  the  disguise  of  com- 
mendable zeal  for  the  glory  of  God. .  . .  Wlien  a  vain  and  we;ik-mindcd 
Christian  has  been  WTouglit  upon  either  by  flatterers  or  designing 
teachers  or  by  his  own  warm  distemj)ered  imagiiwtion,  to  sujjjjose  that 
he  of  all  others  is  called  ujjon  to  seek  the  glory  of  God,  and  punish 
his  foes,  he  soon  devises  bold  and  decisive  means  for  vindicating 
the  supposed  honor  of  God,  and  finds  argiunents  for  his  employuig  the 
most  cruel  and  iuiscri])tural  measures  against  heretics  and  blasphemers. 
...  It  was  not  a  blood-thirsty  cruelty  that  always  kindled  the  fires  of 
the  IiKjuisition,  l)ut  at  times  an  int(;nse  desire  to  glorify  God,  by 
8e.irehing  out  his  concealed  foes,  penetrating  the  arc;uia  of  their  he-art, 
and  com])cllIng  them,  by  civil  pains  and  penalties,  to  come  back  within 
the  pale  of  the  church ;  otherwise  they  were  to  be  extirpated  as  here- 


TRUE  AND  FALSE  ZEAL  CONTRASTED  3 'J 

tics,  whom  it  was  dangerous  for  religion  to  allow  to  live.  The  same 
fiery,  schismatical  sjjtrit  passed,  in  a  mitigated  form,  from  the  lloman 
into  the  Reformed  chm-ches ;  for  they  also  persecuted,  and  persecuted 
from  a  sincere  desire  to  promote  the  glory  of  God.  The  amiable 
Bishop  Hall  wrote  a  treatise  on  Moderation,  and,  with  all  his  ten- 
derness to  sectaries,  he  lets  out  the  symptoms  of  a  deeply-seated 
schismatical  spirit  when  he  says,  "  Master  Calvin  did  well  approve 
himself  to  God's  church,  in  bringing  Serve tus  to  the  stake  at  Gene^'a." 
The  good  man  knew  not  what  spu'it  he  was  of.  .  ,  .  It  is  an  angehc  at- 
tainment to  have  burning  zeal,  and  yet  zeal  burning  in  love,  to  compass 
the  whole  world,  not  for  proselytes,  but  for  converts,  and  to  respect 
every  smcere  mquirer  after  truth  as  an  honest,  conscientious  professor. 
True  zeal  draws  no  other  sword  from  its  scabbard  but  the  sword  of  the 
Spirit,  which  is  the  word  of  God.  —  Dr.  Gavin  Struthers  :  Party 
Spirit;  in  Essays  on  Christian  Union,  pp.  417-19. 

When,  in  the  course  of  our  reading,  we  meet  with  passages  so  finely 
conceived  as  these,  so  beautifully  exhibiting  the  divine  and  gentle  spirit 
of  our  Lord,  and  so  admirably  conducive  to  the  harmonj'  and  peace  of 
Christendom,  without  furnishing  any  grounds  for  indiflerence  to  the  study, 
reception,  and  spread  of  gospel  truth;  and  when  we  recall  to  mind  the 
jealousies  and  the  heart-burnings  which  so-called  Christians  have  cherished 
within  their  hearts,  and  the  wars  and  persecutions  which  they  have  waged 
against  each  other,  on  account  of  mere  difl'erences  of  opinion,  —  we  have 
sometimes  thought  that  the  religious  world  would  lose  little  of  truth,  and  far 
less  of  love,  if  the  creeds  and  confessions  and  systems  of  theology,  which 
have  encouraged  feelings  and  acts  so  alien  to  all  that  is  good  and  pure  and 
peaceable,  had,  without  the  concurrence  of  man's  embittered  passions,  beea 
swept  by  the  winds  of  heaven  to  the  mouth  of  some  great  volcano,  there  to 
be  engulfed,  and  perish  for  ever.  But  we  remember  our  Master's  words, 
and  exclaim,  in  the  spirit  of  his  far-seeing  counsel,  —  "  Nay!  lest,  while  we 
gather  up  the  tares,  we  root  up  also  the  wheat  with  them."  Lfet  the  follies 
and  errors,  and  even  the  fulminatious,  of  theologians  remain  unconsunied 
in  the  monumental  piles  which  they  have  raised  in  their  codes  and  books, 
lest,  while  they  are  being  burnt,  the  wisdom,  the  piety,  and  the  truths,  weak 
and  imperfect  as  they  are,  which  have  to  some  extent  been  incorporated 
with  their  opposites,  perish  also.  Let  them  remain  awhile, —  but  remain 
inactive  in  the  production  of  further  evil,  till  the  great  field  of  humanity  be 
covered  by  the  fruits  of  truth,  righteousness,  and  love,  —  till  the  harvest 
of  a  liberal  Christianity  appear,  when  the  tares  of  error,  of  bigotry,  and  of 
persecution  will  either  have  rotten  away  from  the  face  of  the  earth,  or  been 
consumed  by  the  flames  of  a  Catholicism  not  assumed  as  a  badge  of  dis- 
tinction by  anyone  church,  but. operating  as  a  vitat  principle  in  all  eocietiea 
ond  communities  bearing  the  name  of  the  blessed  Jesus. 


40  TDK  TRUE  BASES  OF   CHRISTIAN  UNION. 


SECT.  III.  —  NOT  UNIFORMITT  OF  OPINION,  BUT  PIETY,  MUTUAL  FOR- 
BE.\RANCE  AND  AFFECTION,  —  LOVE  TO  GOD,  CHRIST,  AND  MAN.  — 
THE   BASES  OF   CHRISTIAN  UNION. 

Let  them  see 
That  as  more  pure  and  gentle  is  your  faith, 
Yourselves  are  gentler,  purer. 

ROBEBT   SOCTHET.     - 

Although  a  difference  in  opinions,  or  modes  of  worship,  may  prevei»< 
an  entire  external  union,  yet  need  it  prevent  our  union  in  affection  ? 
Though  we  cannot  think  alike,  may  we  not  love  alike  ?  May  we  not 
)>e  of  one  heart,  though  we  are  not  of  one  opinion  ?  It  is  certain,  so 
long  as  we  know  but  in  part,  that  all  men  will  not  see  all  things  alike. 
It  is  an  unavoidable  consequence  of  the  present  weakness  and  shortr 
ness  of  the  human  understanding,  that  several  men  will  be  of  sevenu 
minds  in  rehgion  as  well  as  in  common  life.  Nay,  firther :  although 
every  man  necessarily  believes  that  every  particular  opinion  which  he 
holds  is  true,  yet  can  no  man  be  assured,  tliat  all  his  own  opinions, 
taken  together,  are  true.  Nay,  every  thinking  man  is  assured  they 
are  not ;  seeing  Humanum  est  errare  et  nescire,  to  be  ignorant  of  many 
things,  and  to  be  mistaken  in  some,  is  the  necessary  condition  of 
humanity.  Eveiy  A\•i^e  man,  therefore,  will  allow  others  the  same 
liberty  of  thinking,  which  he  desires  they  should  'illow  him ;  and  will 
no  more  insist  on  their  embracing  his  opinions,  than  he  would  liave 
them  to  insist  on  his  embracing  theirs.  He  bears  with  those  who 
differ  from  him,  and  only  asks  him  with  Avhom  he  desires  to  unite  m 
love  tliat  single  question,  "  Is  thine  heart  right,  as  my  heart  is  with 
thy  heart  ?  "  No  man  can  choose  for,  or  prescribe  to,  anotlier.  Bui 
every  man  must  follow  the  dictixtcs  of  his  own  conscience,  in  simplicity 
and  godly  sincerity.  He  must  be  fidly  ])crsuadcd  in  his  own  mind,  and 
then  act  according  to  the  best  hght  he  has.  Nor  has  any  creature 
power  to  consti-ain  another  to  walk  by  his  own  rule.  God  lias  given 
no  right  to-  any  of  the  children  of  men  thus  to  lord  it  over  the  con- 
sciances  of  his  brethren ;  but  every  man  must  judge  for  himself,  as 
every  man  must  give  an  account  of  himself  to  God.  I  dare  not 
presume  to  imj)ose  my  mode  of  worship  on  any  other.  I  believe  it  is 
truly  ])rimitive  and  apostolictil ;  but  my  belief  is  no  rule  for  another. 
1  ask  not,  therefore,  of  him  with  whom  I  would  unite  in  love,  "  Are 
you  of  my  chm-cli  ?  —  of  my  congregation  ?      Do  you  receive  the 


THE  TRUE  BASES  OF  CHRISTIAN   UNIOJf.  41 

same  form  of  church  government  ?  Do  you  join  in  the  same  form 
of  prayer  wherein  I  worship  God  ?  "  My  only  question  at  present  is 
this,  "  Is  thine  heart  right,  as  my  heart  is  with  thy  heart  ?  "  Is  thy 
heart  right  with  God  ?  Dost  thou  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Chi'ist  ? 
Is  thy  faith  filled  with  the  energy  of  love  ?  Art  thou  employed  in 
doing  "  not  thy  own  will,  but  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  thee  "  ?  Is 
thy  heart  right  towards  thy  neighbor  ?     Do  you  show  yoiu:  love  by 

your  works  ?     If  it  be,  "  give  me  thine  hand." A  catholic 

spirit  is  not  an  indifference  to  all  opinions,  nor  an  indifference  as  to 
pubUc  worship,  nor  an  indifference  to  aU  congregations.  Catholic 
love  is  a  catholic  spirit.  But,  if  we  take  this  word  in  its  strictest 
sense,  a  man  of  a  cathoHc  spirit  is  one  who  gives  his  hand  to  all  whose 
hearts  are  right  with  his  heart ;  one  who  loves  his  friends  as  brethren 
in  the  Lord,  as  members  of  Christ,  and  children  of  God;  as  joint 
partakers  now  of  the  present  kingdom  of  God,  and  feUow-heirs  of  his 
eternal  kingdom ;  all  of  whatever  opinion,  or  worship,  or  congregation, 
who  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  who  love  God  and  man ;  who, 
rejoicing  to  please,  and  fearing  to  offend  God,  are  careful  to  abstain  from 
evil,  and  are  zealous  of  good  works.  He  is  the  man  of  a  truly  catho- 
lic spu-it  who  bears  all  these  continually  upon  his  heart.  —  Abridged 
from  John  Wesley  :  Works,  voL  i.  pp.  347-54. 

The  preceding  extract  consists  of  a  few  sentences  culled  from  Wesley's 
Sermon  on  a  "  Catholic  Spirit,"  which,  though  unambitious  in  its  style  and 
objectionable  in  one  or  two  of  its  ideas,  will  perhaps  bear  comparison  with 
any  thing  of  the  kind  ever  published.  Would  that  this  discourse,  contain- 
ing more  of  the  principles  of  true  religion  than  can  be  found  in  many  a 
professed  work  on  divinity,  were  scattered  in  every  Christian  home;  read 
and  digested  by  every  man,  woman,  and  child;  and  exemplified  in  everv 
thought  and  word  and  deed ! 

Away  with  names,  and  the  petty  distinctions  of  religious  party! 
Are  you  a  Christian,  or  wish  to  be  one,  in  deed,  not  in  word  only ; 
for  the  sake  of  spiritual,  not  temporal  purposes  ?  Then  drop  your 
prejudices,  and  seek  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  not  in  systems,  but 
in  the  WTitten  gospel,  assisted  by  prayer,  and  the  pious  illustrations 
of  men  sincere  and  good,  however  they  may  have  been  reviled  or 
neglected  through  prejudice,  political  artifice,  or  mistaken  zeal.  When 
you  have  thus  found  the  truth,  show  its  influence  by  your  charity.  Be 
united  to  all  Chnstians,  as  Avell  as  to  Christ ;  and  beware  of  making 
distinctions  by  nicknames,  and  thus  exciting  envy,  WTath,  and  malice, 
which  are  of  a  nature  opposite  to  the  fruits  of  the  Spiiit,  —  love,  joyi 

4» 


42  THE  TRUE  BABES   OF  CHRISTIAN  UNION. 

Olid  peace.  Good  men  should  join  in  a  firm  phalanx,  that  the  evL 
may  not  triumj)]!  in  their  divisions.  Let  all  who  are  imited  under  the 
banners  of  Christ  hail  one  another  as  brother  Christians,  thouj^h  they 
may  differ  on  the  subject  of  church  discipUne,  rites,  ceremonies,  or 
even  non-essential  doctrme.  .  .  .  Let  us  consider  how  the  kird-heartcd, 
unconverted,  depraved,  and  worthless  part  of  mankind  exult,  wliile 
Christians,  agreeing  in  essentials,  quarrel  and  revile  each  other,  not  on 
the  substance  of  reHgion,  but  on  the  mere  shades  of  cUtference  in 
0])iiuon  in  matters  of  indiffei-ence.  .  .  .  Are  you  a  sincere  believer,  —  a 
lover  of  God  and  man  .'*  I  salute  you  from  my  heart  as  my  brother 
in  Christ,  whether,  in  consequence  of  your  birth  and  eduaition,  jou 
formed  the  creed  you  utter  at  Jlome,  at  Geneva,  or  m  yoiu-  closet  at 
home.  —  ViCESIMUS  Knox  :  Christian  Philosophy ;  in  Works,  voL  vii. 
pp.  289  -90. 

A  more  extensive  diffusion  of  piety  among  all  sects  and  parties 
will  be  the  best  and  only  pre])aration  for  a  cordial  miion.  Christians  wili 
then  be  disposed  to  appreciate  their  differences  mor*  equitably ;  to 
turn  their  chief  attention  to  points  on  which  they  agree ;  and,  m  conse- 
quence of  loving  each  other  more,  to  make  every  concession  consistent 
with  a  good  conscience.  Instead  of  wishing  to  vanquish  others,  every 
one  ^vill  be  desirous  of  being  vanquished  by  the  trutli.  ...  In  the 
room  of  being  lepelled  by  mutual  antipathy,  they  will  be  insensibly 
drawn  nearer  to  each  other  by  the  ties  of  mutiuil  attachment.  A 
Lirger  measui-e  of  the  spirit  of  Christ  would  prevent  them  from  con- 
verting every  incidentiil  variation  into  an  impassable  boundary,  or 
from  condemning  the  most  innocent  and  laudable  usages  for  fear  of 
symbolizing  with  another  class  of  Christians.  .  .  .  The  general  preva- 
lence of  piety  in  different  communities  would  inspire  that  mutiuxl 
respect,  that  heartfelt  homage,  for  the  virtues  conspicuous  in  the 
character  of  their  respective  members,  which  would  urge  us  to  ask 
with  astonishment  and  regret,  "\\^h}'  cannot  we  be  one  ?  AVhat  is  it 
that  obstructs  our  union  ^  Instead  of  mainfexining  the  barrier  wliich 
separates  us  from  each  other,  and  emplo}  ing  ourselves  in  fortifying  the 
frontiers  of  hostile  communities,  we  should  be  anxiously  de^ising 
the  means  of  narrowing  the  grounds  of  disj)ute,  by  drawing  the  atten- 
tion of  all  parties  to  those  fundamental  and  catholic  jjrinciples  in 
wliich  they  concin-.  —  lloiiKiiT  Hall  :  Review  of  Zeal  withoul  Inno- 
vation ;  in  yVorks,  vol.  ii.  j).  2GG. 

Truth  and  virtue  we  do  not  hold  to  be  chartered  to  comjxuues : 
tliey  are  possessed  only  in  part  by  tii  ->s(>  who  possess  the  most  of  them  \ 


THE  TRUE  BASES  OF  CIIRIS1IAN   UNION.  43 

and  they  are  possessed  iii  some  good  measure  even  by  many  Avho  must 

yet  stand  condemned  as  capitiillj-  >\Tong  in  theology It  is 

trite  to  say,  that,  while  the  human  mind  contmues  what  it  is,  men 
must  differ,  not  merely  in  taste  and  intellectual  preferences,  but  even 
in  some  of  those  matters  of  belief  which  should  be  under  the  control 
of  mere  reason.  The  supposition  of  an  age  of  imiformity  is  therefore 
chimerical ;  but  the  supposition  —  nay  the  positive  hope  —  of  an  age 
of  Christian  concord  and  of  cordial  combination  is  not  chimerical; 
for  it  is  identical  with  the  belief  of  the  truth  of  Chiistianity  itself,  and 

of  its  triumph  in  the  world Ought  not  those  to  look  well  to 

the  course  they  are  pursuing,  who,  on  the  plea  of  a  conscientious 
regard  to  some  special  enactment,  or  of  the  adherence  to  some  insti- 
tution which,  at  the  most,  is  but  the  means  to  an  end,  are,  and  in  a 
deliberate  manner,  putting  contempt  upon  Christ's  first  law,  —  his 
universal  and  sovereign  will ;  and  on  such  ground  are  either  refusing 
to  recognize  and  to  consort  with  other  Christians,  or  are  even  denying 
the  very  name  to  those  whose  only  alleged  fault  is  their  error,  if  it  be 
an  error,  on  the  particular  in  question  ?  —  Is.\AC  Taylor  :  Lectures  on 
Spiritual  Christianitij,  pp.  159,  162,  179. 

Let  a  man,  no  matter  what  his  sectarian  distinctions  and  natural 
or  social  disadvantages,  or  what  his  discrepancies  in  the  minor  views 
and  practices  of  religion,  give  but  evidence  of  love  to  Christ  and  to 
his  word,  and  holiness,  and  he  is  my  brother.  Be  he  Ai'minian  or 
Cahinist,  EpiscopaUan  or  CongregationaHst,  —  let  him  be  Baptist 
or  Pedobaptist,  —  let  liim  have  aU  worldly  disadvantages  of  education 
and  station  and  teste,  —  be  he  Greek  or  Barbarian,  bond  or  free,  — 
if  I  love  Christ,  I  love  that  disciple  of  Christ.  .  .  .  Under  every  variety 
of  costume  and  dispensation  and  dialect  and  race,  the  tenant  of  a 
Caffre  kraal  or  of  the  Greenlander's  snow-hut,  —  nay,  let  him  mutter 
this  pra}er  as  his  Pater  Noster  in  an  unknown  tongue ;  if  I  find,  under 
all  his  superstition  and  disguises  of  hereditary  prejudice  and  error, 
the  love  of  my  Christ  and  the  likeness  of  my  Lord,  can  1  —  dare  I 
disavow  the  brotherhood  ?  —  WiLLUM  R.  Williams  :  Lectures  on  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  pp.  12,  13. 

Litolerance  among  Christians  of  reasonable  diversities  of  Christian 
faith  has  been  one  of  the  greatest  errors  of  modern  times,  and  has 
brought  infinite  reproach  on  the  Protestant  cause.  It  greatly  impeded 
the  progress  of  the  Reformation  at  first,  and  has  hindered  both  its 
completion  and  general  prevalence  since.  Wliile  pretendhig  the 
greatest  zeal  for  the  honor  of  God  and  the  pmity  of  religion,  it  if 


44  THE  TRUE  BASES  OF   CHRISTIAN  UNION. 

itself  the  greatest  corruption.  It  betrays  the  cause  of  God  with  a 
kiss,  and  stabs  it  to  the  heart,  with  professions  of  love  on  its  lips.  It 
is  amazing  that  the  world  has  been  so  long  in  getting  its  eyes  ojjen  to 
the  enormous  wckedness  )f  this  procedui-e.  But  a  brighter  day  is 
breaking,  not  only  Avith  respect  to  the  accui-acy  and  extent  of  Christian 
knowledge,  but  also  with  respect  to  a  reasonable  indulgence  of  the 
ignoi-uit,  the  weak  and  erring.  Uniformity  in  faith,  and  equality  in 
suijcrior  knowledge  and  discernment,  are  veiy  desii-able  indeed ;  but 
Christi;in  charity  and  mercy  are  far  graiter  and  better.  Witli  all  the 
importance  of  Christianity  as  an  institute  of  knowledge,  it  has  a 
transcendently  greater  importance  as  an  institute  of  love  and  general 
holiness.  —  Leicester  A.  Sawyer:  Organic  Christianity,  p.  413. 

The  Scripture  plan  of  imity  and  concord  cannot  be  Ixised  on  abso- 
lute uniformity  of  opinion  and  practice.  This  is  the  basis  on  which  the 
church  of  Rome  maintains  her  jjretended  unity,  —  a  basis  which  may 
perhaps  be  consistently  assumed  by  a  church  claiming  infallibility,  and 
denj-ing  the  right  of  private  judgment.  It  is  a  basis  which  may  seem 
to  be  countenanced  by  some  expressions  in  Scripture,  if  we  attend  to 
the  sound  rather  than  the  sense  of  them.  It  has  often  been  attempted 
to  be  acted  on.  It  was  the  favorite  scheme,  the  idol,  of  tlie  framers 
of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  about  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century;  and  it  is  a  scheme  to  which,  even  in  recent  times,  some 
excellent  persons  have  clung  with  fond  affection  or  obstinate  perti- 
nacity. .  .  .  The  shghtest  knowledge  of  the  constitution  of  human 
nature,  and  the  shghtest  attention  to  the  history  of  the  human  race, 
may  condnce  us  that  it  is  a  scheme  utterly  hopeless  and  chimerical . . . 
On  all  other  subjects  on  which  they  think  at  all,  men  entertixin  chft'er- 
ent  opinions.  But  there  is  no  sul)ject  so  Ulcely  to  occasion  a  variety 
of  sentiment  as  reUgion;  for,  though  its  fundimcntal  doctrines  are 
comjxiratively  few  and  at)unclxntly  obvious,  there  is  no  subject  wliich 
presents  in  its  subordinate  details  such  a  multiplicity  of  intricate  and 
difficult  questions,  none  that  has  been  so  much  perplexed  by  con- 
troversy, none  more  likely  to  a^vaken  prejudice  and  passion,  and  none 
for  the  investigation  of  which  the  human  faculties  labor  mider  a 
stronger  indisj^osition  or  in;iptitude.  .  .  .  Even  in  the  purest  and 
kippiest  ages  of  tlie  church,  the  friends  of  reUgion  have  not  been 
entirely  of  one  mind ;  and,  if  at  times  there  has  been  something  like 
an  approximation  towards  complete  uniformity,  it  has  probably  been 
when  the  spirit  of  free  inquiry  has  been  extinguished,  when  the 
(acuities  of  tlie  human  mind  were  in  a  sbite  of  utter  torpor "VVlmt 


THE  TRUE  BASES  OF   CHRISTIAN   UNION.  45 

is  the  Scrip  ture  plan  for  maintaining  the  unity  of  the  Saviour's  mystical 
body  ?  To  that  plan  we  are  ah-eady  in  some  measure  "  shut  up,"  by 
finding  all  others  to  be  either  unwarrantable  or  impracticable.  Of 
that  plan,  the  characteristic  feature  is  forbearance ;  and  the  essence 
of  it  may  be  expressed  in  a  single  sentence.  All  true  Christians  ought 
to  walk  together  in  all  things  in  which  they  are  agreed ;  and  as  the 
points  on  which  they  differ,  though  some  of  them  may  be  very  iriiport- 
ant,  cannot  be  essential  to  salvation,  they  ought  to  make  these  points 
matters  of  forbearance.  —  Dr.  Robert  Balmer  :  The  Scripture  Prin- 
ciples of  Unity ;  in  Essays  on  Christian  Union,  pp.  35-37. 

Notwithstanding  these  sensible  remarks,  Dr.  Balmer  condemns,  as  "  lax 
and  latitudinarian,"  the  principle  maintained  by  John  Locke,  that  all  who 
admit  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity  should  be  received  into  the  Christian 
church. 

Men  have  tried  all  kinds  of  methods,  except  the  only  right,  effec- 
tual, and  divinely  appointed  one,  for  gathering  into  union  the  broken 
and  scattered  fragments  of  the  church,  and  for  tuning  to  harmony  its 
discordant  voices.  They  have  tried  the  compulsion  of  law,  the  power 
of  logic,  the  persuasion  of  eloquence,  the  subscription  of  articles,  the 
application  of  tests,  the  authority  of  tradition;  and  yet  all  these 
means  have  signally  failed,  not  only  to  procure  internal  unity,  but 
external  uniformity.  .  .  .  And  yet  there,  upon  the  very  siurface  of  reve- 
lation, where  every  eye  can  see  it,  lies,  and  has  lain  for  nearly  eighteen 
centuries,  a  principle  so  simple  that  a  child  may  understand  it,  which, 
if  properly  felt  and*  judiciously  applied,  would  have  effected  that 
which  has  ever  been  considered  so  necessary,  and  yet  so  difficult,  — 
"  Forbearing  one  another  in  love."  Di\anely  inspired,  heaven- 
descended,  godlike  sentence !  How  simple,  yet  how  subHme  !  .  .  K 
there  be  one  practical  precept  which  we  could  wish  to  be  printed  in 
starry  characters  on  the  dark  page  of  the  nightly  sky,  written  in  sun- 
beams on  the  tablet  of  the  earth,  and  uttered  both  night  and  day  in 
voices  from  the  heavens,  that  the  attention  of  men  might  be  irresistibly 
turned  to  it,  and  their  hearts  unavoidably  impressed  by  it,  this  is  the 
injunction ;  and  yet  what  greater  clearness,  or  more  importance,  or 
higher  authority,  would  this  splendid  method  of  publiciition  give  to 
it,  beyond  what  it  already  possesses  as  a  portion  of  Holy  Writ  ? 
"  Forbe.\ring  on'E  another  in  love."  This  one  short  precept, 
universally  obeyed,  would  set  all  right,  and  reduce  all  to  order.  It 
would  not  at  once  reconcile  all  minds,  but  it  would  harmonize  all 


46  TlIE  TRUB  BASES  OF  CHRISTIAN   UNION. 

hearts.  It  would  not  amalgamite  all  churches  into  an  external  uni« 
formity ;  but  it  would  combine  them  all  in  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  and 
the  bond  of  peace.  It  might  not  hush  the  voice  of  controversy ;  but  it 
would  tiike  from  it  the  harsh  dissonance  of  human  passion,  and  cause 
it  to  spciik  in  the  nieUifiuous  tones  of  divine  chaiity.  —  JoiLV  Angell 
Jamks  :  Union  in  relation  to  the  Religious  Parties  of  England;  in 
Essays  on  Christian  Union,  pp.  218-19. 

Toleration !  I  kite  the  word.  It  impHes  a  power  or  a  right  which 
nowhere  has  existence ;  and  the  man  who  tolerates,  under  the  imagi- 
nation that  he  possesses  any  such  right,  is  only  second  in  presumption 
to  him  who  uses  the  imaginary  right  in  actual  intolerance  and  persecu- 
tion. No  man  has  the  right  either  to  tolerate  or  not  to  tolerate 
another,  in  aught  whatever  which  he  may  conscientiously  tliink  or  say 
or  do  in  regard  to  wliat  hes  between  him  and  his  God,  —  his  rehgion. 

You  are  perfectly  conscious,  you  tell  me,  that  you  are  suicere 

and  upright  in  your  desire  to  know  the  mind  of  Christ,  and  m  your 
mquiries  after  it ;  and  therefore  you  must  regard  the  conclusions  to 
'vhich  another  has  come  that  are  different  from  yours,  as  arismg  from 
'Jie  biasing  influence  of  some  predisposition  against  the  truth.  Well : 
«uppose  the  other  dechres  himself  to  have  the  very  same  conscious- 
ness of  uitegrity,  must  not  he  think  the  same  of  the  conclusions  to 
which  you  hiive  come?  Suppose  it  admitted  that  there  am  be  no 
such  thing  as  perfectly  innocent  error.  Is  it  safe  —  nay,  is  it  consist- 
ent with  the  self-diffidence  and  humihty  of  the  Christum  character  — 
to  assume  our  own  intalliljihty ;  not  our  own  exclusive  conscientious'- 
ness  merely,  but  the  absolute  impossiliihty  of  the  error  lying  with  us ; 
as  if  we,  of  all  Christians  on  earth,  were  altogether  beyond  tiie  reach 
of  any  perverting  or  biasing  influence  ?  Do  not  becoming  distrust  of 
ourselves,  and  becoming  clmrity  for  others,  imite  in  recommending  a 
different  princijjle  on  which  to  regulate  our  feehngs  and  our  conduct 
towards  our  fellow-Christians  ?  Is  there  no  allowance  to  be  made  for 
the  varieties,  great  as  they  are,  even  in  mental  persj)icacity  and  vigor, 
and  none  for  the  power  of  e;irly  habits  and  associations,  where  the 
sincerity  of  the  desire  to  know  and  to  follow  the  mind  of  Chrisi  may 
be  ecjual  ?  .  .  .  Tiiis  is  the  evil,  —  your  forgetting  that  you  hold  no 
position  towards  others  which  they  have  not  the  s;xme  title  to  assume 
towards  you.  If,  indeed,  jjcrfect  unanimity  is  to  be  assumed  as  the 
only  admissible  basis  of  Christian  communion,  "where  are  the  two 
individuals  to  be  found,  who,  if  they  continued  to  exercise  freedom  of 
thought,  and,  in  doing  so,  did  not  take  sj)ecial  care  to  tie  theii'  tongues, 


THE  TRUB  BASES  OF   CHRISTIAN  UNION.  47 

and  keep  their  thoughts  to  themselves,  could  long  maintain  consistent 
feJowship  ?"....  When  we  see  a  fellow-Christian  in  earnest  in  his 
inquiries  after  his  Master's  wiU,  —  searcliing  the  Scriptures,  seeking 
divine  direction,  discovering  an  evident  desire  to  know  what  is  right, 
and  to  the  extent  of  his  knowledge  taitlifully  doing  it,  —  we  are  then 
warranted,  nay,  more  than  warranted,  we  are  bound  to  conclude,  that 
the  same  conscientiousness  has  also,  and  equally,  been  in  exercise  in 
regard  to  those  points  on  which  he  has  arrived  at  different  conclusions 
from  our  own.  We  may  marvel  at  those  conclusions,  —  mangel  greatly 
at  his  not  seeing  what  to  us  appears  so  clear.  But  we  must  not  forget, 
that  his  right  to  wonder  is  the  same  as  ours.  The  effect  on  both 
sides  ought  to  be,  instead  of  proud  and  indignant  despite  of  each 
other's  judgments,  the  exercise  of  self-diffident  humble-mindedness, 
and  the  cidtivation  of  reciprocal  charity.  —  Dr.  Ralph  Wardlaw  : 
A  Catholic  Spirit;  in  Essays  on  Christian  Union,  pp.  316,  332-5. 

It  is  painful  to  think,  that,  amid  sentiments  breathing  so  just  and  divine 
a  spirit,  and  so  happily  fitted  to  promote  good-will  and  union  among  all  who 
acknowledge  one  and  the  same  Lord  and  Master,  this  celebrated  writer 
should  have  felt  obliged,  by  his  views  of  Christian  doctrine,  to  say,  p.  317, 
that  "  from  the  pale  of  the  Christianity  within  which  the  spirit  of  catholic 
love  is  to  be  cherished,  those  must,  of  necessity,  be  excluded  who  hold  and 
avow  the  principles  of  Socinianism  ; "  that  is,  such  persons  as  are  im- 
properly called  by  this  name,  namely,  believers  in  one  only  God  the  Father, 
and  in  his  Son  and  Servant,  the  man  Christ  Jesus.  The  Essay  from  which 
we  have  taken  the  above  extract  is  one  of  eight,  severally  penned  by 
Chalmers,  Balmer,  Candlisii,  John  Angell.  James,  David  King, 
Warulaw,  Struthers,  and  Symington, — divines  all  more  or  less  noted 
both  in  their  own  land  and  in  the  United  States.  These  Essays,  written  in 
1844  at  the  suggestion  of  a  friend  to  Christian  union,  abound  in  good  common 
sense,  united  with  an  earnest  piety,  and  a  feeling  of  intense  desire  for  the 
prevalence  of  kinder  dispositions  and  more  liberal  modes  of  operation  than 
at  present  exist  in  "evangelical"  or  orthodox  churches;  but  we  regret  to 
say,  that  the  charity  which  they  exhibit,  catholic  as  it  assumes  to  be,  is  so 
naiTow  as  to  exclude  those  "  worshippers  of  the  Father,"  through  the 
mediation  of  the  Son  and  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  in  whose  society 
have  been  enrolled  the  names  of  Carpenter  and  Channing,  of  Ware  and 
of  Norton,  —  gifted  and  good  men,  who,  if  they  were  not  acknowledged  on 
earth  as  co-workers  with  a  Chalmers,  a  Bulmer,  and  a  Wardlaw  in  the 
same  great  cause,  —  that  of  a  common  Christianity,  —  are,  we  trust,  recog- 
nized in  heaven  by  them  as  fellow-saints  and  fellow-disciples,  now  that 
they  have  each  left  the  scene  of  their  earthly  labors,  and  gone  to  another 
and  a  holier  sj  here  of  God's  universe,  where  the  differences  that  separate<J 
them  here  from  each  other  are  probably  all  unknown. 


48  CHRISTIAN  FELLOWSHIP  A>'D  UNIVERSAL  LOVE. 


SECT.  rv.  —  THE  DUTY  OF  HOLDING  INTERCOURSE  ANT)  COMMl^'ION 
WITH  CHRISTIANS  OF  ALL  DENOMINATIONS,  AND  OF  LOVING  AU. 
MANKIND. 

Oh,  might  we  all  our  lineage  prove, 
Give  and  forgive,  do  good  and  love, 
By  soft  endearments  in  kind  strife 
Lightening  the  load  of  daily  life ! 

Kebb. 

Let  church  union  and  communion  be  laid  upon  none  but  catholic 
tenns,  which  are  possible  and  fit  for  all  to  be  agreed  in.  Common 
reason  will  tell  any  impartial  man,  that  there  can  be  no  more  eft'ectual 
engine  to  divide  the  churches,  and  raise  contentions  and  persecutions, 
than  to  make  laws  for  church  commmiion,  requiiing  such  conditions 

as  it  is  certain  the  members  cannot  consent  to If  ever  the  churches 

agree,  and  Christians  be  reconciled,  it  must  be  by  leaAing  out  all 
didding  impositions,  and  requiring  nothing  as  necess;iry  to  commu- 
munion,  which  all  may  not  rationally  be  expected  to  consent  in.  — 
llicii-ARD  B.\XTER:  Practical  Works,  vol.  \\.  jjp.  186-7. 

Baxter  did  not  regard  differences  of  opinion  on  various  doctrinal 
questions,  or  respecting  church  government,  of  much  importance, 
while  he  could  regard  the  jxirties  as  real  Chi-istians,  and  disposed  to 
live  in  peace  with  others.  To  these  two  points  he  considered  all  other 
things  subordinate.  Christian  fellowship,  with  him,  was  not  the 
fellowship  of  Cahinists  or  Arminians,  of  Episcoj^aUans,  Presbyterians, 
Independents,  or  Bajjtists :  it  was  the  fellowship  of  Christums,  holding 
the  one  faith  and  hope  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  unity  of  spirit, 
and  righteousness  of  life.  This  is  the  only  aithoUc  communion  wliich 
is  worth  contending  for;  and  which,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  will,  in 

due  time,  absorb  all  other  party  distinctions  and  disputes His 

[Baxter's]  cathoUc  princij)le  of  fellowship  with  all  geniune  Christums 
is  better  understood  than  it  was ;  though  even  jet,  ahs !  but  ])artially 
adojjted  as  a  princij)le,  and  still  more  imperfectly  exemplified  in  pnic- 
tice.  It  inipUes  not  indifierence  to  truth,  but  devoted  attachment  to 
it  It  involves  union  without  comjiromise,  and  co-operation  without 
sacrifice  of  consistency.  It  recognizes  the  exclusive  cLiims  of  divine 
authority  in  religion,  and  the  unquestioimble  rights  of  conscience; 
securing  for  each  indindual  the  j)owcr  of  acting  according  to  his  own 
convictions,  while  it  rcijuires  him  to  concede  no  less  to  others.  It 
will  ultimately  efiect  wliat  acts  of  uniformity  have  hitherto  &iled  to 


CHRISTIAN  FELLOWSHIP  AND  UNIVERSAL  LOTE.  49 

produce,  and  which  will  never  be  brought  about  either  by  compulsory 
measures  of  state,  or  stormy  controversies  in  the  church.  A  greater 
portion  of  the  spuit  of  Christ,  and  a  brighter  manifestation  of  his  holy 
image,  ^nll  do  more  to  unite  all  his  disciples,  than  the  most  perfect 
theory  of  chm'ch  government  that  has  yet  been  recommended,  or 
forced  on  the  world.  When  this  blessed  period  of  love  and  union 
shall  arrive,  the  services  of  Baxter,  as  the  indefatigable  advocate  of 
catholic  commimion,  ^vill  not  be  forgotten.  —  William  Orme,  mi  his 
edition  of  Baxter's  Practical  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  584,  613. 

The  preceding  abstract  of  Richard  Baxter's  sentiments  on  Christian 
liberty  and  communion  is  supported  by  innumerable  passages  in  the  writings 
of  that  noble-minded  Puritan.  In  p.  574  of  the  same  volume,  Okme,  who 
seems  to  have  caught  the  true  spirit  of  his  hero,  makes  ou  this  subject 
other  observations,  which  are  deserving  of  perusal. 

I  have  always  found,  that,  Avhen  men  of  sense  and  \irtue  mingle  in 
free  conversation,  the  harsh  and  conlused  suspicions  which  they  may 
have  entertained  of  each  other  gradually  give  way  to  more  just  and 
more  candid  sentiments.  '  In  reality,  the  example  of  many  great  and 
good  men  averts  every  imputation  of  imj^ropriety  from  such  inter- 
course ;  and  the  iiifonnation  wliich  I  have  myself  occasionally  gained 
by  conversing  with  learned  teachers  of  many  different  sects  \\i\\  always 
make  me  remember  with  satisfaction,  and  acknowledge  with  thankful- 
ness, the  favor  wliich  they  have  done  to  me  by  their  imresei-ved  and 
judicious  communications. ...  In  truth,  men  of  improved  understand- 
ings and  rooted  viitue  do  not  suffer  difference  of  opinion  to  give  them 
unfavorable  impressions  of  each  other Will  the  reviewer  sus- 
pect me  of  any  predilection  for  infideUty  and  disloyalty, .  .  .  because 
in  the  exoteric  and  esoteric  doctrines  of  the  EngHsh  church  I  have 
met  with  no  rule  by  which  I  am  pledged  to  entertain  any  hatred  what- 
soever to  Dissenters,  whether  Protestant  or  Catholic ;  because,  "  as 
much  as  lieth  in  me,  I  would  Hve,"  and  exhort  others  to  live,  "  peace- 
ably with  "  the  Lutheran,  Greek,  Koman,  and  Genevan  churches,  and 
all  other  Christian  societies;  or,  fuially,  because  vnth.  the  hght  of 
natural  religion,  and  m  the  spirit  of  revealed,  I  think  it  my  duty  to  be 
"  kindly  affectinned  towards  all  Jews,  Turks,  infidels,"  schismatics, 
"  and  heretics,"  as  belonging  to  "  one  "  great  "  fold  under  "  the  care 
of  "  one  "  good  *•  Shepherd  "  ?  How  does  the  sacred  and  indispensa- 
ble duty  of  doing  good,  especially  unto  those  of  the  household  of 
"  faith,"  absolve  me  from  the  obligation  to  do  good,  if  it  be  possible, 
to  all  other  men  ?     Are  they  not  endowed,  like  myself,  with  rational 

5 


50  CHRISTIAN   FELLO.VSIIIP    AND    UNIVKRSAL    LOVE. 

fciculties,  capable  of  pliysical  liappiness  and  social  union ;  and  phced, 
or  at  least  believed  by  me  to  be  placed,  in  a  state  of  discipline,  as 
subjects  of  reward  or  punishment  in  a  life  to  come?  AVhy,  then, 
should  I  "  judge  them,"  or  "  set  tliem  at  nought;  "  or,  by  my  intole- 
rance, "  throw  stumbling-blocks  in  their  way  "  to  the  adoption  of  that 
religion  wliich  I  liave  embraced  as  true  ?  —  Dr.  Samull  Paru  :  fforks,' 
vol.  iii.  pp.  275-6;  and  vol.  iv.  pp.  509-19. 

The  piuctice  of  incorporating  private  opinions  and  human  inventions 
with  the  constitution  of  a  church,  and  ^nth  the  terms  of  communion, 
has  long  appeared  to  him  [the  writer]  untenable  in  its  princij)le,  and 
pernicious  in  its  effects.  There  is  no  position  in  the  whole  compass 
of  theology,  of  the  truth  of  which  he  feels  a  stronger  jjcrsiusion,  than 
that  no  man  or  set  of  men  are  entitled  to  j)rescril)e,  as  an  indisjiensable 
condition  of  communion,  wliat  the  Xew  Testament  has  not  enjoined 

as  a  condition  of  salvation. It  [the  Lord's  Supper]  is  appointed 

to  be  a  memorial  of  the  greatest  instance  of  love  that  was  ever  exhi- 
bited, as  well  as  the  principal  j)ledge  of  Christian  fraternity.  It  must 
appear  surprising  that  the  rite  which  of  all  others  is  most  adipteil  to 
cement  mutual  attachment,  and  wliich  is  in  a  great  measure  api)ointed 
for  that  jjurpose,  should  be  fixed  upon  as  the  line  of  demarcation,  the 
impassable  barrier,  to  sejjarate  and  disjoin  the  followers  of  Clirist.  .  .  . 
According  to  this  notion  of  it,  it  is  no  longer  a  sj-mbol  of  oiu*  common 
Christianity  :  it  is  the  badge  and  criterion  of  a  jiarty,  a  mark,  of  discri- 
mination ai)])lied  to  distinguish  the  nicer  shades  of  difference  among 
Christians.  —  Kobkrt  Hall  :  Preface  ami  Introductory  Renutrks  to 
Terms  of  Co)nmunio7i ;  in  J  fforks,  vol.  i.  j)p.  285,  291. 

What  I,  above  all  otlier  things,  wish  to  see  is  a  close  union  between 
Christian  refonners  and  those  who  are  often,  as  I  think,  falsely  charged 
with  being  enemies  of  Christianity.  It  is  a  jxirt  of  the  jierfection  of 
the  gospel,  that  it  is  attractive  to  all  those  who  love  truth  luid  good- 
ness, as  soon  as  it  is  known  in  its  true  nature,  wliilst  it  tends  to  cle;vr 
away  those  erroneous  views  and  evil  i)assions  with  which  i)liil;mthropy 
and  jihilosojihy,  so  long  as  they  stind  aloof  from  it,  are  ever  in  some 
degi'ee  corruirted.  My  feeUng  towards  men  whom  I  believe  to  be 
sincere  lovers  of  truth  and  the  hajjpiness  of  their  fellow-creatures, 
while  they  seek  tliese  ends  othenvise  than  through  tlie  medium  of  the 
gospel,  is  rather  tliat  they  are  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  (Jod,  and 
might  be  brouglit  into  it  altogether,  than  tliat  they  are  enemies  wliose 
views  are  directly  opposed  to  our  own.  —  Dr.  Thomas  ArnoI-D' 
IjClttr  2U;  in  Lfe.  mul  Cnrnnpondencc,  \i\).  72-3. 


CHRISTIAN  FELLOWSHIP   AND  UNIVERSAL  LOVE.  51 

It  was  a  sad  defect  of  the  Reformation,  and  a  disastrous  error 
of  the  reformers,  that,  with  all  their  sublime  conceptions  of  Christian 
liberty,  as  they  maintained  it  against  Papal  intolerance  and  oppression, 
they  did  not  miderstand  the  wide  extent  to  which  it  ought  to  be 
maintained  against  themselves  and  against  one  another.  Having 
aboHshed  the  despotism  of  the  Papacy,  they  did  not  clearly  see  that 
the  chm-ch  onlj'  ^\'anted  the  lordship  of  Christ,  They  thought  they 
must  settle  terms  of  communion,  and  rules  of  fiuth,  which  Christ  and 
the  apostles  had  not  settled.  The  great  law  of  church  fellowship 
and  commmiion  is  contained  in  llom.  xiv.  1,  "  Him  that  is  weak  in  the 
faith  receive,  but  not  to  doubtful  disputations."  Christ  received  all 
that  Gxme.  We  hear  of  no  applicants  for  chui'ch  privileges  being 
rejected  by  the  apostles.  .  .  .  The  gospel  is  an  institute  of  faith  and 
knowledge,  but  it  is  still  more  an  mstitute  of  love  and  holiness.  .  .  . 
With  an  open  Bible  in  hand,  and  the  laws  of  love  and  liberty  on  our 
lips,  and  the  rights  and  obligations  of  independent  private  judgment 
on  the  forefront  of  all  our  religious  movements,  how  can  we  set  up 
bai's  and  gates  to  shut  out  of  our  o\vn  particular  enclosures  of  the 
church  of  Christ,  the  weak  and  ignorant,  and  erring  in  faith,  whom, 
nevertheless,  God  accepts,  and  with  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  deigns  to 
dwell  ?  How  can  we  be  guilty  of  such  aiTogance  and  inconsistency  ? 
How  can  we  allow  ourselves  thus  to  sin  against  our  weak  brethren, 
and  put  stumbling-blocks  both  in  their  way  and  in  the  way  of  sinners  ? 
How  can  we  so  belie  our  professions,  and  dishonor  our  Master,  whose 
living  and  dying  cliarge  it  was,  that  we  should  love  one  another  as  he 
loved  us ;  and  whose  prayer  it  was,  in  the  immediate  \ievf  of  his  cru- 
cifixion, that  we  may  all  be  one,  even  as  he  and  the  Father  are  one ; 

that  we  may  be  one  in  them  ?    John  xvii.  21 When  Unita- 

rianism  arose,  it  was  made  a  question,  both  in  Europe  and  America, 
whether  it  should  be  tolerated  as  an  allowable  diversity  of  opinion,  or 
expose  its  subjects  to  separation  and  excommunication.  The  subject 
of  the  precise  character,  and  rektions  of  Clmst  had  been  long  debated 
in  the  ancient  church,  and  had  been  the  occasion  of  sanguinary  wars 
and  persecutions.  .  .  .  Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  not  strange  that 
it  was  a  matter  of  regret  mth  many,  that  the  controversy  concerning 
the  character  of  Christ  should  be  revived  in  modem  times,  and  that 
there  was  a  general  disposition  to  prohibit  dissent  on  this  sul)ject  in 
most  Protestant  churches.  .  .  .  Tlie  Presbyterian  churches  in  England, 
Switzerland,  and  France,  adopted  the  same  i)vinciple  of  toleration  as  the 
church  of  England ;  and  Unitaiianism  gained  the  ascendancy  among 


52  fJHRISTIAN  FELLOWSHIP   AND  TJNITERSAL  LOVE. 

them.  The  Presbvterian  churches  of  the  United  Suites  adopted  the 
opposite  jiroliibition  policy.  The  Congregational  churches  of  New 
England  were  at  first  tolerant  of  Unitixrian  \-iews,  till,  considerable 
defections  liaxing  occurred,  the  subject  aime  up,  in  181G,  lor  general 
discussion,  when  tliis  toleration  was  abandoned,  and  the  oi)j)osite  policy 
adopted.  This  was  a  revolution  in  the  poHcy  of  CongrcgationaUsm, 
against  which  many  protested  at  the  time,  and  concerning  wliich  some 
are  doubtful  still.  Since  this  time,  the  Supreme  Di\'inity  of  Christ  lias 
not  only  been  generally  held  by  Congi-egatioruihsts,  as  it  is  by  church 
of  Englandists  and  Episcopalbns,  but  Iws  been  insisted  ujjon  as  neces- 
sary to  membership  in  the  church.  The  correctness  of  tliis,  either  in 
respect  to  jjrinciijle  or  i)oUcy,  admits  of  being  seriously  questioned.  — 
Leicester  A.  Sawyer  :  Organic  Christianity,  pp.  405-8. 

This  testimony  on  belialf  of  the  most  enlarged  views  of  Christian  com- 
munion is  extremely  valuable  and  instructive;  proceeding,  as  it  does,  from 
the  pen  of  one  who  regards  ''  the  denial  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,"  his 
essential  Divinity,  as  "  undoubtedly  a  great  error; "  and  on  whom  therefore 
cainiot  rest  any  suspicion  of  his  being  favorable  to  Unitarianism.  Though 
assured  that  "  the  toleration  of  error  seldom  prejudices  the  tnUh,"  he 
ackuDwleiigcs,  as  an  honest  man  and  a  candid  historian,  that,  by  admitting 
tlie  principle  of  toleration,  the  English,  Swiss,  and  French  Presbyterian 
churches  became,  on  the  whole,  Unitarian;  and  that,  by  adopting  an  oppo- 
site policy,  —  that  of  exclusion  from  the  membership  of  their  church,  —  the 
Congregationalists  have,  in  general,  remained  Trinitarian  ;  —  admissions 
which  seem  to  imply  that  the  tendency  of  religious  freedom  and  Christian 
charity,  modelled  on  the  usages  and  the  spirit  of  apostolic  times,  is  to  pro- 
duce a  state  of  things  leading  to  the  reception  of  Unitarian  doctrine. 

Schismatics,  stickUng  for  church  purity,  and  lajing  down  Laws  to 
promote  it,  which  have  not  been  laid  down  by  Christ,  have,  like  others 
who  have  pretended  to  be  wiser  tlian  God,  done  gi-ievous  injury  to 
the  purity  of  church  communion.  They  have,  unwittingly,  laid  a 
snare  for  their  own  decejjtion.  In  jjrcscribing  terms  of  commimioa 
which  are  not  to  be  foimd  in  the  IJible,  they  luive  tlittered  their  own 
vanity,  and  are  in  the  greatest  danger  of  preferring  their  own  secUxrian 
features  to  the  broad  outlines  of  Cliristiau  character  Lud  down  in  the 
word  of  God.  Tarty  men  are  m  the  utmost  jeopardy  of  extenduig  a 
culpable  degree  of  charity  to  party  men.  Chiming  in  witli  their 
peculiarities  is  ajjt  to  cover  a  multitude  of  sins.  Hence  it  is,  that  a 
strict-conununion  churcli  has  the  gross  inconsistency  connected  with  it 
of  having  excluded  from  its  \rd\c  the  most  excellent  ones  of  the  earth, 
whilst  it  Iras  taken  in  those  of  its  own  denomination,  who,  in  a  spirit 


CHRISTIAN  FELLOWSHIP  AND   UNIVERSAL   LOVE.  53 

of  candor,  are  little  better  than  Samaritans.  Truly,  the  practice  is 
revolting,  which  is  followed  in  many  sectarian  churches,  of  excommu- 
nicating, at  every  dispensation  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  every  Christian 
save  those  of  their  own  section.  Men  such  as  Leighton  and  Owen 
and  Fuller  are  cast  out  -Hnthout  any  compunction,  because  they  agree 
not  ^vith  them  in  church  order  or  government ;  and  yet  party  men,  of 
vt-ry  suspicious  character,  find  admission.  Alas !  sectarianism  too  often 
takes  the  bad,  and  casts  the  good  away.  It  fills  the  Lord's  table  with 
nominal  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Independents,  Baptists,  or  Cove- 
nanters, rather  than  with  real  Christiiins,  bearing  aU  these  designations. 
Were  Christ  on  earth,  would  he  not  say  to  aU  such  chm-ches,  "  By 
what  authority  did  you  refuse  to  hold  communion  with  my  servants  ? 
and  who  gave  you  that  authority  ?  "  —  Dr.  Gavin  Struthers  :  Party 
Spirit ;  in  Essays  on  Christian  Union,  pp.  423-4. 

Wherever  the  catholic  spirit  exists  in  its  genuine  character  and 
legitimate  amplitude  and  strength,  it  will  display  itself  in  admitting 
and  courting  the  society  of  fellow-believers,  Avithout  distinction  of 
outward  denomination ;  the  intercourse  of  personal  companionship 
and  friendship,  and  fireside  association,  along  with  the  exercises  of 
Chiistian  converse  and  social  communion  with  God ;  and  the  inter- 
course, too,  stiU  private,  though  somewliat  more  enlarged,  of  those 
spiritual  coteries,  to  which  our  forefiithers  gave  the  appropriate  desig- 
nation of  fellowship-meetings.  It  will  display  itself  still  fui'ther  in 
combiiution  for  pm-poses  of  Christian  benevolence,  and  in  co-operation 
for  promoting  their  accomplishment,  in  every  accessible  way  that  does 
not  trench  upon  conscientiousness,  or  demand  any  sacrifice  of  principle. 
And  can  any  satisfactory  reason  be  assigned  why  it  should  not  disjjlay 
itself  in  the  more  extended  "  communion  of  saints,"  as  exemplified 
in  the  more  public  ordinances  of  divine  appointment  and  Christian 
celebration ;  and,  above  all,  in  the  simple  but  delightful  feast  of  love,  — 
the  Lord's  Supper  ?  In  what  capacity  is  it  that  we  take  our  places 
there  ?  Is  it  as  fellow-presbyterians,  or  fellow-congregationalists,  or 
fellow-baptists,  or  fel'ow-pedobaptists  ?  Is  rt  not  rather  as  fellow- 
believers,  fellow-disciples,  feUow-christians  ?  If  a  Presbyterian  and 
a  Congregationalist,  or  a  Baptist  and  a  Pedobaptist,  object  to  sitting 
do^ni  A\ith  each  other  at  the  table  of  the  Lord,  one  of  two  mferences 
must  follow:  either  they  must,  on  accoimt  of  their  difference  of 
sentiment  as  to  the  government  or  rites  of  the  church,  question 
each  other's  Christianity;  or  it  must  be,  not  as  believers,  disciples, 
Chiistians,  but  as  Presbyterians  or  Congregationalists,  Baptists    or 


54  CHRISTIAN  FELLOWSHIP   AND   CXIVERSAI.   LOVE. 

Pedobaptists,  that  they  respectively  consider  themselves  as  entitled 
to  a  seat  at  the  feast.  And  is  there  any  one  bearing  the  name  of 
Jesus,  now  to  be  found,  who  holds  and  ^viU  defend  so  antiscriptural 
and  narrow-minded  a  position  ?  Let  it  be  remembered,  reader,  it  is 
not  our  table,  —  it  is  the  Lord's  tiible;  and  shall  we,  then,  considet 
ourselves  as  entitled  to  shut  the  door  of  admission  to  it  against  any 
whom,  there  is  every  reason  to  bcHevc,  the  cU\-ine  Master  of  the  feast 
would  himself  receive  ?  Is  there  no  presumption  in  this  ?  It  is  not 
a  Presbyterian  table,  or  an  Independent  table :  it  is  a  Christian  table. 
And  ought  not  all,  then,  who  are  "  of  one  heart  and  one  soul "  in 
regard  to  the  essential  articles  of  evangelical  truth,  and  who  give 
endence  of  their  attachment  to  these  l)lessed  truths  by  "a  conversation 
as  it  becometh  the  gospel  of  Clirist,"  to  welcome  one  another  to  a  joint 
particij)ation  of  the  sjinbols  of  the  same  broken  body  and  the  same 
shed  blood,  wliich  are  the  objects  of  their  common  faith,  the  ground 
of  their  common  hope,  the  charter  of  their  common  freedom,  and  the 
spring  of  their  common  holiness  and  theii*  common  joy  ?  ...  If  I  see 
a  fellow-believer  who  ha])j)ens  to  be  a  Prcsbj-terian  manifesting  in  his 
life  a  larger  amount  of  the  exalted  moral  excellences  and  the  lovely 
beauties  of  the  Christian  character  than  another  fellow-beUever  who 
is  an  Lidependent,  I  must,  if  my  sentiments  and  feehngs  are  in  any 
thing  like  harmony  with  the  dictates  of  the  word  of  God,  experience 
a  correspondingly  Larger  amount  of  the  love  of  complacency  towards 
the  one  than  towards  the  other.  The  character  must  stand  higher 
in  my  estimation,  and  lie  closer  to  my  heart  And  of  what  kind, 
then,  must  that  princij)le  be,  —  how  am  I  to  characterize,  how  am  1  to 
designate  it,  —  according  to  wliich  I  am  to  be  precluded  from  ginng  a 
pbce  beside  me  at  the  Chiistian  feast  to  the  more  worthy,  while  I  am 
bound  to  give  it  to  the  less  worthy,  of  my  brotherly  affection  ?  —  boiuid 
to  receive  him  who  is  less  a  Cliristian  because  he  is  an  Independent, 
and  bound  to  exclude  liim  who  is  moi-c  a  Christian  because  he  is  a 
Presbyterian !  —  Dr.  Ralph  Wardlaw  :  A  Catholic  Spirit ;  in 
Essays  on  Christian  Union,  pp.  338-^0. 

Of  a  character  similar  to  those  quoted  from  Drs.  Wartlliiw  and  Struthere 
are  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Balmku  on  tlie  same  subject,  and  in  the  same 
work,  pp.  52-76;  but,  excellent  as  they  are  alike  in  spirit  and  in  style,  they 
would  occupy  too  much  room  if  inserted  here,  and  a  short  extract  would 
not  do  them  justice.  

Few  Trinitarians  of  the  prc<ent  day  imajiine  that  the  Twelve  who 
accompanied  Jesus  during  his  ministry  on  earth,  —  who  walked  and  drank 


CHRISTIAN   FELLOWSUIP  AND   UNIVERSAL  LOVE.  i»5 

and  ate  with  liim,  —  who  heard  liim  utter  his  message  of  mercy  in  the 
name  of  his  God  and  Father,  and  address  the  same  great  Being  in  the  lan- 
guage of  praise  and  supplication,  —  and  who,  though  they  loved  and 
re\"ered  him  with  the  simplicity  and  tenderness  of  little  children,  sometimes 
forgot  their  own  inferiority;  some 'of  them  speaking  to  him  in  terms  of 
familiarity,  some  rebuking  him,  others  contending  in  his  presence  for  earthly 
power,  one  of  them  denying  and  another  betraying  him,  and  all  at  last 
forsaking  him;  —  few  Trinitarians,  we  say,  are  now  disposed  to  think  that 
the  apostles,  who  never,  during  the  time  of  their  personal  intercourse  with 
their  Lord,  had  any  conception  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  his  office,  had,  or 
could  have,  the  faintest  idea  of  his  being  the  unchangeable  and  ever-blessed 
God.  To  these  men,  however,  who,  like  the  Unitarians  of  modern  times, 
believed,  not  that  their  Master  was  Almighty  God,  but  merely  his  great 
Messenger  and  Anointed  One,  but  whose  views  of  his  kingdom  were  con- 
fessedly much  interior  to  theirs,  did  Jesus  address  the  words,  "  By  this  shall 
all  men  know  that  ye"  —  who  fully  believe  in  m^' divine  mission  —  "are 
my  disciples,  if  ye  have  love  one  to  another." 

To  this  fiict,  and  to  the  just  inference  to  be  drawn  from  Christ's  beautiful 
and  comprehensive  precept,  some  of  the  good  men  *  from  whom  we  have 
quoted  do  not  seem  to  have  adverted.  With  much  kindness  and  liberality 
.  of  feeling,  but  with  a  proper  indignation  against  the  conduct  of  such  secta- 
ries as  would  debar  from  Christian  communion  persons  of  a  high  moral  an  1 
religious  character,  because,  though  adopting  their  general  conceptions  of  the 
Trinity  and  the  Atonement,  they  differ  from  them  as  to  church  government 
and  forms,  these  writers  stop  short  in  the  application  of  their  great  principle, 
and  unhesitatingly  refuse  to  hold  communion  with  a  "  Socinian  "  or  Unita- 
rian daughter  of  Christ's  church,  who  —  though,  like  her  reputedly  orthodox 
aigters,  she  may  have  failed  to  do  all  that  might  have  been  justly  expected  — 
has  yet  been  in  some  degree  distinguished  for  her  works  of  love  and  bene 
volence,  for  her  devotion  to  the  principles  of  religious  freedorn,  and  for  hei 
defences  of  our  common  Christianity  agamst  the  attacks  of  unbelievers; 
and  who,  while  she  claims  for  her  own  the  philanthropic  Firmin,  the  noble- 
minded  Jlilton,  the  godlike  Newton,  the  pious  Lardner,  and  the  frank  and 
fearless  Priestley,  would  associate  their  names,  not  merely  with  a  section 
of  the  church,  but  with  the  church  itself  and  with  general  humanity,  and 
•would,  in  a  spirit  of  catholic  love,  invite  to  her  communion,  without  one 
question  as  to  the  peculiarities  of  their  creed,  all  who  profess,  and  desire  to 
practise,  the  religion  of  the  once-despised  but  now-exalted  Christ. 


*  Even  the  truly  excellent  and  high-minded  Baxter  says  that  a  "  church  fallen 
to  Arianism  is  unmeet  for  Christian  communion  and  to  be  owned  as  a  church  of 
Christ  ;  "  and  that,  when  the  Arian  or  Pociuian  "  venteth  his  heresy,  he  may  be  by 
the  magistrate  punisheil  for  his  crime,  and  by  the  churches  be  branded  as  none 
of  their  communion."  (See  Practical  Works,  vol.  v.  pp.  443-4;  and  vol.  xv.  p.  442  ) 
But  living,  a.s  Baxter  did.  in  an  age  of  rampant  bigotry,  it  is  not  surprising  that  he 
could  not  wholly  escape  from  the  deleterious  iutliiences  of  sectarianism. 


56  THE  NATOliE  AND  EVILS  OF   INTOLERANCE. 


SECT.  y.  —  TUE   NATURE   AND   EVILS   OF   .^'   INTOLER.VNT   OR  A 
PERSECUTING   SPIRIT. 

I  always  thought 
It  was  both  impious  and  unnatural 
That  such  immanity  and  bloody  strife 
Should  reign  among  professors  of  one  faith. 

Shakspearb. 

IIow  much  is  the  face  of  religion  altered  from  what  it  was  in  the 
iiys  of  the  ai)ostles!  The  ancient  simjilicity  of  doctrine  is  tiu-ned 
into  abundance  of  new  or  private  opinions,  mtroduced  as  necessary 
irticles  of  religion;  and,  aks!  how  many  of  them  false!  So  tliat 
Christians,  being  too  proud  to  accept  of  the  ancient  test  of  Christianity, 
cannot  now  agree  among  themselves  what  a  Christian  is,  and  who  is  to 
be  esteemeda  Christian ;  and  so  they  deny  one  another  to  be  Chiistians, 
and  destroy  their  cliurity  to  each  other,  and  divide  the  church,  and  make 

themselves  a  scorn,  by  their  divisions,  to  the  infidel  world T;dve 

heed  of  eng'aging  yourselves  in  a  sect  or  faction.  For,  when  once  you 
depart  from  Cixtholic  charity,  tlicre  gi'owcth  u]),  insteiul  of  it,  a  partial 
respect  to  the  interest  of  that  sect  to  which  you  join ;  and  you  will  think 
that  whatsoever  doth  promote  that  sect  doth  i}romote  Christianity,  and 
whatever  is  against  that  sect  is  against  the  church  or  ciuse  of  God. 
A  narrow,  secUirian,  sej)arating  mind  will  moke  all  the  truths  of  God 
give  place  to  tlie  oj)inions  of  liis  party ;  and  will  measure  the  ])rosperity 
of  tlie  gospel  in  tlie  world  by  the  prosporit\'  of  his  party,  as  if  he  had 
forgot  that  there  are  any  more  men  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  or 
tliought  God  regarded  none  but  them.  He  will  not  stick  to  jjcrsecute 
ill  the  rest  of  the  cliurch  of  Christ,  if  the  interest  of  his  sect  require  it. 
Wlien  once  men  incor])orate  themselves  into  a  ])arty,  it  possesseth 
them  with  another  spirit,  even  with  a  strange  unch  irit;ibleness,  iiijust- 
ice,  cruelty,  and  jjartiality.  What  hath  the  Christian  world  sutfered 
by  one  sect's  persecuting  another,  and  faction  rising  up  in  fury  to 
maintiiin  its  oww  interest,  as  if  it  had  been  to  maint;un  the  l)eing  of 
all  religion !  —  lliClIAKD  Baxter  :  Christian  Directory  ;  in  Pradlad 
Works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  159-60;  and  voL  vi.  p.  184. 

Party  s])irit  is  a  disposition  tliat  Ciinnot  be  easily  defined,  and  it 
would  be  difficult  to  include  in  a  definition  of  it  even  its  genus  and 
species.  It  is  a  monstrous  composition  of  all  bad  genuses  and  of  all 
bad  species.  It  is  a  hydra  that  reproduces  while  it  seems  to  destroy 
itself,  and  wliich,  when  one  head  luith  been  cut  off,  instantly  produces 


TUE  NATURE  AND  EVILS  OF   INTOLERANCE.  57 

a  thousand  more.  Sometimes  it  is  superstition,  which  inclines  us  if. 
deify  certain  idols,  and,  after  ha\ing  formed,  to  prostrate  first  before 
them.  Sometimes  it  is  ignorance,  which  prevents  our  perceinng  the 
importance  of  some  revealed  truths,  or  tlie  dreadful  consequences  of 
some  prejudices  that  we  had  embraced  in  childhood.  Sometimes  it  is 
arrogance,  which  rashly  maintains  whatever  it  has  once  advanced,  — - 
advanced  perhaps  inconsiderately,  but  which  mil  afterwards  be  reso- 
lutely defended  till  death,  for  no  other  reason  but  because  it  has  been 
once  asserted,  and  because  it  is  too  mortifying  to  yield,  and  say,  "  I  am 
\\Tong;  I  was  mistaken."  Sometimes  it  is  a  spirit  of  mahce  and 
barbarity,  which  abhors,  exclaims  against,  persecutes,  and  would  even 
exterminate,  all  who  dare  contradict  its  oracular  propositions.  Oftener 
still,  it  is  the  imion  of  all  these  vices  together.  A  party  spirit  is  that 
disposition  which  envenoms  so  many  hearts,  separates  so  many  fomihes, 
di\ides  so  many  societies ;  which  has  produced  so  many  excommunica- 
tions, thundered  out  so  many  anathemas,  di-a\ra  up  so  many  canons, 
assembled  so  many  councils,  and  has  been  so  often  on  the  point  of 
subverting  the  great  work  of  the  Reformation,  the  noblest  opposition 
that  was  ever  formed  against  it.  —  James  Saurin  :  Sermons,  vol.  L 
p.  44,  New  York  edition  of  1844. 

In  a  Sermon  on  the  Sovereignty  of  Christ  (vol.  i.  p.  247),  this  Frencn 
Protestant  makes  a  heart-stirring  and  eloquent  appeal  against  the  spirit  of 
bigotry  which  was  in  his  day  so  rampant  in  the  Reformed  Church;  but  it  is 
too  long  for  insertion  here.  It  would  have  been  gratifying,  had  this  eminent 
divine  carried  out  his  principles  of  toleration  and  communion,  so  as  to 
include  all  professing  Christians. 

Though,  by  coercion,  crimes,  which  are  outward  and  overt  acts, 
may  effectually  be  restrained,  it  is  not  by  coercion  that  those  inward 
effects  can  be  produced,  —  conviction  in  the  imderstanding,  or  conver- 
sion in  the  heart.  Now,  these  in  religion  are  all  in  all.  By  racks  and 
gibbets,  fire  and  fagot,  we  may  as  rationally  propose  to  mend  the  sight 
of  a  man  who  squints  or  is  purbHnd,  as  by  these  means  to  enlighten 
the  infidel's  or  the  heretic's  imderstanding,  confute  his  errors,  and 
bring  him  to  the  beUef  of  what  he  disbeHeved  before.  That  by  such 
methods  he  may  be  constrained  to  ])rofess  what  he  disbelieves  still, 
nobody  can  deny,  or  even  doubt.  But  to  extort  a  hypocritical  j)rofe9' 
sion  is  so  far  fi-om  being  to  promote  the  cause  of  God  and  religion, 
that  nothing,  by  the  acknowledgment  of  men  of  all  parties,  can  stand 
more  directly  in  opposition  to  it.  —  Dr.  George  Campbell  :  Lectures 
on  Ecclesiastical  History,  Lect.  25. 


58  THE   NATURE  AND   EVILS   OF   INTOLERANCE. 

The  animosity  and  uncharitableness  wliich  have  evennore  prevailed 
amon<i^  the  diti'crent  denominations  of  Christians  is  another  aiuse  of  the 
gi-o\ving  intidelity  of  the  jjrescnt  age.  It  is  not  said  now,  as  in  the  d;iys 
of  old,  "  See  how  these  Christians  love  one  another  !  "  but  "  See  how 
these  Christians  hate  one  another !  "  Catholics  dimia  Protestants,  and 
Protestants  revile  Catholics.  One  sect  of  Protestarts  anathematizes 
another  sect ;  everj'  one  holding  forth  the  peculuir  doctrines  of  tiieir 
own  jxirty  as  the  truths  of  God,  m  opposition  to  the  peculiar  doctrines 
of  those  who  differ  from  tliem.  .  .  .  Instead  of  turning  our  zeal  ag-ainst 
the  immoralities  of  the  age,  we  have  frequently  turned  it  against  men 
who,  in  every  moral  and  religious  point  of  \iew,  were  perhaps  better 
tlian  ourselves.  A  spirit  of  infalHbiUty,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree, 
per\ades  all  parties.  In  this  unchiistian  stiife,  the  pure  spirit  of  the 
gos]:)el  has  been  banished  from  the  great  body  of  professors,  and  bis 
taken  up  its  abode  among  a  few  solitiiry  mdiriduals,  disj)erscd  through 
the  several  churches  of  Christendom.  ^len  of  discerning  spirit,  seeing 
this  to  be  the  state  of  things  through  all  denominations,  are  led  to 
sujjpose  that  there  is  no  truth  among  any  of  them.  The  fact,  however, 
is  directly  the  contrary.  They  have  all  gotten  the  saAing  tioith,  if  they 
would  hold  it  but  in  piety,  charity,  and  righteousness.  They  all  beUeve 
in  the  Sa^•iour  of  the  world.  Let  them  only  observe  the  moral  and 
religious  ])recepts  of  his  gospel,  and  I  do  not  see  what  more  is  neces- 
sary to  entitle  them  to  oiu-  Cin-istian  regards.  They  may  not  come  up 
to  the  full  orthodox  belief  of  the  gospel ;  but  they  are  such  characters 
as  our  Saviour  himself  would  not  have  treated  with  severity.  And, 
until  religion  is  reduced  to  the  simple  form  in  which  he  left  it,  there 
will  never  be  an  end  to  the  bickerings  and  uncliarifcibleness  of  party, 
and  infidelity  will  of  course  prevail.  —  DA\aD  Simpson  :  Plea  for 
Kel!<j!;ion,  ])p.  111-15. 

Intolerance,  imder  all  its  various  modificiitions  from  insult  to  per- 
secution, from  the  clamors  of  bigots  and  the  anathemas  of  councils  to 
the  dungeons  and  the  chains  and  the  racks  and  the  flames  em]jloyed 
by  the  inquisitors  for  the  glory  of  God,  are  the  produce  of  sjjiritual 

pride Alas !  I  am  sufficiently  versed  m  the  history  of  churches, 

and  the  controversies  of  churchmen,  to  know  with  certunty,  and  to 
lament  with  sincerity,  the  "-rabid  and  unrelenting"  spirit  which  fre- 
quently, I  do  not  siiy  exclusively,  distinguishes  the  odium  llicolosclcuin. 
In  the  very  act  of  defending  that  religion  which  forbids  us  to  "judge 
lest  we  be  judged,"  those  disputants  have  been  too  jirone  to  censure 
persons,  instead  of  examining  things,  —  prone  to  conlbund  particular 


THE   NATURE  AISTD  EVILS  OF  INTOLERANCE.  59 

opinions  Avith  general  jDrinciples,  —  prone  to  load  their  adversju-ies 
with  invidious  consequences  which  those  adversaries  did  not  foresee 
or  which,  being  told  of  them,  they  did  not  admit ;  or  which,  admit- 
ting them,  they  would  not  consider  as  evidences  against  theii'  ■\iews  of 
facts  and  principles,  —  prone  to  assign  criminal  motives  as  the  causes 
of  eiToneous  tenets,  —  prone  to  let  loose  indiscriminate  reproaches  on 
the  dauntless  inquirer  and  the  shameless  scorner,  —  prone  to  uifer 
deistical  pro]:ensities  for  heresy  real  or  supposed,  and  to  insinuate  that 
professed  deism  is  employed  as  a  cloak  for  Im-king  atheism.  Heaven 
forbid  that  I,  or  my  friends,  or  my  enemies,  should  have  "  so  learned 
Christ "  !  —  Dr.  Samuel  Parr  :  Works,  vol.  \i.  p.  383 ;  and  vol.  iv. 
pp.  539-40. 

I  have  read  books  professing  to  recommend  the  benign  religion 
of  Christ,  and  to  refute  all  objections  to  it,  yet  written  in  the  very 
gall  of  bitterness,  and  displajing  a  pride  and  mahgnity  of  heart  which 
may  justly  prompt  the  unbeliever  to  say,  "  If  yom-  reUgion,  of  which 
you  profess  to  be  a  believer,  and  which  you  describe  as  teaching  charity 
or  benevolence  in  its  fullest  extent,  can  produce  no  better  specimen 
than  yom-  own  temper  and  disposition,  let  me  preserve  my  good  nature, 
and  you  may  keep  your  Christianity,  with  all  its  boasted  advantages,  in 
your  oAvn  exclusive  possession."  The  late  Bishop  Warbm-ton  treated 
infidels  mth  a  haughty  asperity  scarcely  proper  to  be  sho\na  to  thieves 
and  mm'derers,  or  any  the  most  abandoned  members  of  society.  .  .  . 
Certain  it  is,  that  the  spirit  which  he  shows  towards  his  opponents  is 
not  the  spirit  of  grace ;  that  spirit  which  is  lo\-ing,  gentle,  and  easy  to 
be  entreated, . . .  Voltaire  and  Rousseau  would  have  loved  Christianity, 
and  probably  believed  it,  if  it  had  not  been  distorted  and  disfigured 
by  the  malignant  passions  of  angry  defenders  of  it,  who  showed  their 
love  of  Christ  by  hating  their  brother,  and  who  appeared  by  their  ac- 
tions to  mean  little  by  their  professions,  besides  the  gratification  of 

pride  and  ararice Warburtonian  insolence  and  ill-nature  have 

done  more  injury  to  the  chiu-ch,  and  to  the  cause  of  Christianity, 
than  any  of  the  ^mters  whom  they  were  intended  to  gall  and  mortify. 
—  ViCESiMUS  Kxox :  Christian  Philosophy ;  in  Works,  vol  vii. 
pp.  205-6,  208. 

In  the  spirit  of  the  foregoing  paragraph,  we  would  express  our  convic 
tion,  that  one  of  the  greatest  injuries  done  to  the  cause  of  Christianity  arises 
from  the  eflort  which  apologists  sometimes  make  on  its  behalf,  h\  overstating 
the  results  of  doubt  and  unbelief,  and  vilifying  the  characters  of  sceptics 
and  infiilels;  instead  of  ofl'ering  a  calm-but  earnest  and  masterly  exposition 
of  its  principles  and  evidences.     We  are  far  from  thinking,  that  the  slate  of 


60  THE   NATURE  AND   EVILS   OF  INTOLERANCE. 

mind  leading  to  a  rejection  of  the  gospel  is  favorable  to  the  growth  of  the 
spiritual  aliections,  to  the  building-up  of  a  truly  disinterested  character,  or 
to  the  possession  of  the  best  and  most  cheering  conceptions  of  God's  wiU 
and  man's  destiny;  and  we  would  agree  with  the  strongest  partisan  in  con- 
demning tliat  unhallowed  will  which  mocks  at  whatever  is  pure  or  elevating 
in  tliought,  or  which  tries  to  sap  the  foundations  of  faith  in  the  unseen  and 
eternal.  But  we  dare  not  dive  into  the  hearts  of  our  unbelieving  brethren, 
and  say  that  in  each  and  every  case  the  blindness  of  men  to  the  divinity 
of  Christ's  mission  must  necessarily  have  proceeded  from  base  hearts  and 
unholy  lives.  On  the  Contrary,  we  hope  and  trust,  that,  though  they  may 
not  exhibit  those  high  models  of  perfection  which  are  attainable  by  the 
lowliest  disciples  of  Christ,  there  are  some  liable  to  scepticism  more  from  an 
obliquity  of  their  understandings  than  from  a  perversion  of  their  hearts; 
who,  witiiout  being  able  to  own  the  name  of  the  great  blaster,  to  address  the 
Creator  as  their  Father,  or  to  hold  unquestioning  faith  in  a  heaven  beyond 
the  tomb,  have  yet  received  a  portion  of  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  have  longings 
after  a  good  God  "  if  haply  they  might  find  him,"  with  aspirations  for 
immortality,  and  kind  thoughts  and  good  deeds  for  their  brethren  of  man 
kind.  And  we  hope  and  trust,  that,  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  sit  upon  his 
throne  of  judgment,  and  reject  those  who  called  him  "  Lord,"  but  who  did 
not  what  he  commanded  them,  he  will  saj'  to  the  honest  and  devout  sceptic, 
*'  Come,  thou  child  of  doubt  and  error;  come,  thou  blessed  of  my  Fatlier, 
who  hath  pitied  thy  involuntary  wanderings  and  thy  gropings  after  truth 
and  goodness;  come  to  me;  for,  though  thou  never  didst  own  me  personally, 
I  accept  what  thou  didst  unto  my  brethren  as  done  unto  myself;  —  come  to 
;ne  of  my  Father's  mansions,  and  be  a  child  of  God." 

How  much  is  it  to  be  lamented,  that  the  Christian  world  should 
be  so  violently  agitated  by  disputes,  and  di^^ded  into  factions,  on  points 
•which,  it  is  allowed,  in  whatever  way  they  are  decided,  do  not  enter 
into  the  essentials  of  Christianity !  When  will  the  time  arrive  when 
the  disciples  of  Christ  shall  cordially  join  hand  and  heart  with  all  who 
"hold  the  Head,"  and  no  other  terms  of  communion  be  insisted  u])on 
in  any  chiu-ch  but  wlmt  are  necessary  to  constitute  a  real  Christian ! 
The  departiu"e  from  a  principle  so  directly  resulting  from  the  genius  of 
Christianity,  and  so  evidently  inculcated  and  impUcd  in  the  Sacred 
Scriptures,  lias,  in  my  apprehension,  been  productive  of  infinite  mis- 
chief; nor  is  tliere  room  to  anticipate  the  period  of  the  universal 
ditfusion  and  triumph  of  tiie  Christian  religion,  but  in  consequence  of 
its  l)eing  completely  renounced  and  abandoned.  What  can  be  m>»re 
rejnignant  to  tiie  l)euutiful  idea  which  our  Saviour  gives  us  of  his 
church,  as  one  fold  under  one  Shepherd,  than  the  present  aspect  of 
Christendom,  split  into  separate  and  hostile  communions  frowTiing 
defiance  ou  each  other,  where  each  erects  itseli"  upon  jarty  prmciplcsi 


THE  Nature  and  evils  op  intolerance.  61 

and  selects  its  respective  watchword  of  contention,  as  though  the  epithet 
of  "  mihtant,"  wlien  ap])ned  to  the  chiu-ch,  were  designed  to  announce, 
not  a  state  of  conflict  with  tlie  powers  of  darkness,  but  of  iiTCConcilable 
intestine  warfare  and  opposition !  —  Robert  Hall  :  Preface  to  Dis- 
course on  2  Cor.  iv.  1;  in  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  131-2. 

It  has  always  seemed  to  me,  tliat  an  extreme  fondness  for  our  "  dear 
mother  the  panther  "  is  a  snare,  to  which  the  noblest  minds  are  most 
subject.  It  seems  to  me,  that  all,  absolutely  all,  of  our  religious 
affections  and  veneration  should  go  to  Christ  himself;  and  that 
Protestantism,  Catholicism,  and  every  other  name,  which  expresses 
Christianity,  and  some  differentia  or  proprium  besides,  is  so  far  an 
e\i\,  and,  when  made  an  object  of  attachment,  leads  to  superstition 

and  error. I  gi'oan  over  the  divisions  of  the  church,  of  all  our 

evils  I  tliink  the  greatest,  —  of  Christ's  church  I  mean ;  that  men 
should  call  themselves  Roman  Catholics,  Church  of  England  men. 
Baptists,  Quakers,  all  sorts  of  various  appellations;  forgetting  that 
only  glorious  name  of  Cliristian  which  is  common  to  all,  and  a  true 
bond  of  miion.  I  begin  to  think  that  things  must  be  worse  before 
they  are  better,  and  that  nothing  but  some  great  pressure  from  without 
will  make  Christians  cast  away  their  idols  of  sectarianism ;  the  worst  and 
most  mischievous  by  wliich  Christ's  church  has  ever  been  pLigued.  — 
Thos.  Arnold  :  Let.  73,  92 ;  Life  and  Correspondence,  pp.  223,  238. 

We  have  quoted  these  passages  of  Dr.  Arnold,  because  they  express  the 
noble  and  catholic  sentiment,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  be  more 
firmly  attached  to  the  principles  which  are  common  to  all  forms  or  modifica- 
tions of  Christianity  than  to  the  diflerences  by  which  they  are  distinguished 
from  one  another.  But  we  do  not  altogether  agree  with  the  excellent  writer 
in  condemning  the  use  of  names,  when  these  are  employed  only  for  the 
purpose  of  indicating  the  various  shades  and  peculiarities  of  religious  faith. 
So  long  as  the  human  mind  is  diversified,  as  to  its  powers  and  capacities, 
hi  different  individuals,  by  the  circumstances  of  birth,  culture,  association, 
and  example,  so  long  will  there  be  a  difference  in  the  conceptions  of  men 
respecting  some  of  the  doctrines  of  which  Christianity  consists,  the  relations 
of  these  doctrines  to  each  other,  and  their  comparative  importance,  with 
the  requisite  modes  of  expressing  them;  and,  as  it  is  highly  improbable  that 
all  minds  will  ever  be  cast  in  one  unvarying  mould,  or  that  society  will  be 
so  reconstructed  and  so  monotonized  as  to  produce  a  precise  uniformity 
of  tastes  and  opinions  on  any  subject  of  engrossing  interest,  therefore  will  it 
ever  be  found  convenient  and  necessary  for  the  purposes  of  religious  niter- 
course,  if  not  for  the  interests  of  truth,  to  mark  the  various  differences  in 
theologic  belief  by  the  use  of  terms  more  specific  than  that  of  "  Christian." 
The  great  fault  lies  not  in  employing  appellations  to  distinguish  one  brancli 

B 


Gi  THE  NATURE  AND  EVILS  OF  INTOLERANCE. 

cf  Christ's  church  from  another,  but  in  choosing  such  as  are  derived  from 
the  names  of  distinguished  men,  as  if  parties  regarded  themselves  rather 
as  tlie  followers  of  Arias  or  Athanasius,  of  Luther  or  Calvin,  of  Socinus, 
Wesley,  and  others,  than  as  the  common  disciples  of  one  great  blaster,  — 
the  members  of  only  one  rightful  Head,  Jesus  Christ.  Another  fault,  not 
less  pernicious  in  its  operation  and  results,  is  the  associating  with  sectarian 
apjiellations,  ideas  of  moral,  not  intellectual,  differences;  the  regarding  some 
of  them  as  significant  of  all  that  is  divine,  and  others  of  all  that  is  demoniac ; 
the  applying  to  those  who  difl'er  from  us,  terms  which  they  do  not  them- 
selves regard  as  just,  and  at  the  same  time  using  them  as  nicknames,  or 
■words  of  reproach,  —  as  the  representatives  of  impiety,  blasphemy,  and 
irreligion.  But  that  such  denominational  terms  as  Unitarian  and  Trinita- 
rian, or  Unitarian  Christian  and  Trinitarian  Christian,  should  excite  feelings 
of  rancor  and  ill-will  amongst  the  various  branches  of  the  universal  church, 
and  be  employed  as  synonymous  with  infidelity,  idolatry,  or  antichristianity, 
is  surely  as  unreasonable  and  improper  as  it  would  be  to  use  the  national 
distinctions  of  Frenchman  and  Spaniard  to  signify  that  these  people  are  the 
natural  enemies  of  Englishmen  and  Americans,  and  that  they  are,  and  ever 
will  be,  unworthy  of  belonging  to  the  human  race,  —  to  the  family  and 
brotherhood  of  man. 

Party  spirit,  in  tliat  sense  in  wliich  I  have  spoken  of  it  as  a  thing 
to  be  wholly  renounced  and  sedulously  shunned  in  religious  matli:rs, 
consists  in  a  general,  uidefuute  conformity  to  the  \iev>'s>  and  prac  tices 
of  some  party,  —  a  zeal  for  the  advancement  of  that  party  and  the 
promotion  of  their  olijects,  generally,  and  without  limitiition  either  of 
the  time  or  of  the  olyects  themselves.  .  .  .  We  are  right  when  the 
objects  proposed  are  in  themselves  good,  and  when  these,  and 
the  means  by  which  they  are  promoted,  are  distinctly  specified :  we 
are  right  in  associating  together  for  such  purposes,  pro\ided  we  are 
cixreful  to  guard  our  minds  against  the  insensible,  insidious  encroach- 
ments of  party  spirit;  against  being  unconsciously  led  beyond  the 
defined  limits ;  so  as  to  bind  ourselves,  in  any  thing  that  concerns 
religion,  by  an  indefinite,  general  allegiance  to  any  man  or  set  of  men. 
...  If  any  one  joins  a  regularly-formed  religious  assocLition  for  the 
distributing  of  Bibles  and  other  selected  books,  and  for  ether  such 
specified  purposes,  he  does  not  bind  himself  to  a  general  conformity 
of  sentiments  and  practice  in  other  points,  wth  each  other,  or  even 
with  llie  majority  of  the  members,  but  preserves  his  original  indc^ 
pendoncc.  IJut  it  is  otherwise  if  a  man  allows  himself  to  be  considered 
a.s  belonging  to  a  jiarty,  and  as  conforming  indefinitely  to  their  general 
views,  their  ])revailing  tone  of  sentiment,  and  their  est;iblislicd  practice. 
lie  may  fiiitter  himself,  indeed,  tktt,  whenever  he  may  see  reason  to 


THE  NATURE  AND  EVILS  OF   INTOLERANCE.  63 

di! appro  re  of  any  of  these,  he  can  withdraw.  But  the  odium  he  would 
incur  by  such  a  step  is  but  too  likely  to  make  him  hesitate  at  taldng 
it ;  and  in  the  meantime,  while  hesitating,  he  is  drawn  on  by  little 
and  little  to  acquiesce  in,  and  ultimately  to  countenance,  much  that 
he  would  originally,  and  judging  for  himself,  have  shrunk  from.  — 
Archbishop  Whately  :  Essays  on  Dangers  to  Chnstian  Faith, 
pp.  92,  94-5,  97-8. 

The  divisions  of  the  Christian  chiu-ch  are  undoubtedly  much  to  be 
deplored.  They  present  a  most  unseemly  appearance  to  the  world, 
of  that  religion  which  may  be  said  to  be  "  one  and  indi^dsible."  They 
imply  much  imperfection  on  the  part  of  its  professors,  occasion  great 
stumbling  to  unbelievers,  and  impair  the  energy  and  resoiu-ces  wliich 
might  be  advantageously  employed  in  assailing  the  common  enemy. 
The  causes  of  these  di^^sions  are  to  be  sought  in  the  ignorance,  the 
weakness,  and  the  prejudices  of  Christians ;  in  indolent  submission  to 
authority  on  one  part,  and  the  love  of -influence  on  another;  in  the 
power  of  early  habits  and  associations ;  and,  above  all,  in  the  influence 
of  a  worldly  sphit,  which  wai"ps  and  governs  the  mind  in  a  thousand 
ways.  —  William  Orme,  in  his  edition  of  Baxter^ s  Practical  Works, 
vol.  i.  pp.  97,  98. 

At  that  period  [the  period  of  the  Reformation],  Christians  of  every 
class  and  party  believed  that  gross  religious  errors  were  pimishable  by 
the  ciAil  magistrate,  —  a  Popish  doctrine  which  they  had  not  yet 
renounced,  and  which,  it  is  to  be  feared,  is  not  even  to  this  day  and 
in  the  most  enlightened  part  of  the  world,  exterminated  fi-om  the 
breasts  of  all  Protestants.  By  cherishing  such  a  principle,  they  betray 
the  best  of  causes,  fumisli  occasion  for  the  most  injm-ious  representa- 
tations  of  Christianity,  and,  instead  of  pro\ing  that  they  have  learned 
of  their  Master,  who  was  "  meek  and  lowly  of  heart,"  show  that  they 
imitate  the  misguided  disciples  who  were  for  calling  down  foe  from 
heaven.  —  Dr.  F.  A.  Cox  :  Life  of  Melanctlwn,  pp.  279-80. 

Party  spirit  in  religion  is  another  spurious  proof  of  piety.  .  .  . 
Whenever  men  act  together,  the  mind,  by  one  of  its  mysterious 
powers,  sees  a  new  being  in  the  union,  and  soon  forms  almost  a 
personal  attachment  for  it.  It  enHsts  men's  pride  and  ambition,  and 
arouses  all  their  energies ;  and  devotion  to  this  imaginary  existence 
becomes  often  one  of  the  strongest  passions  of  the  human  mind.  It 
is  one  of  the  sins  to  wliich  the  human  heart  is  most  prone,  and  in 
which  it  is  most  imjjrcgnalile.  A  man  usually  thinks  it  a  nrtue.  He 
sees  he  is  not  working  for  liiniself,  and  persiwdes  liimsell'  that  it  is  the 


64  TUE   NATUUK  AND   KVILS   OF   INTOLEKANCE. 

principles  of  his  party  which  are  the  object  of  his  att;ichment.  Bui 
this  is  not  the  case ;  for,  when  these  principles  spread  partially  into 
other  jjarties,  he  is  always  displeased.  He  is  never  satisfied  at  seemg 
his  opponents  coming  to  the  truth :  they  must  come  over  to  his  side. 
This  .  .  .  spirit  burns  everpvhere  in  the  Cliristian  church  :  it  mfluences 
parish  against  parish,  and  society  agiiinst  society,  and  makes  each 
denomination  jealous  and  suspicious  of  the  rest  It  frowns  upon  the 
truth  and  the  Christian  prosperity  which  is  not  found  within  its  own 
pale.  It  is  the  spirit  of  intolerance  and  exclusion.  "  "We  found  one," 
it  says,  "  existing  out  devils  in  thy  ruime,  and  we  forbade  him  because 
he  foUoweth  not  us."  Banish  this  spirit  for  ever.  If  men  will  "  cast 
out  de\-ils,"  no  matter  whom  they  follow  :  they  must  do  it,  if  they  do 
it  at  all,  in  Jesus'  name,  and  no  matter  for  the  rest.  We  must  not 
fro\\Ti  upon  real  piety  or  truth,  because  they  do  not  appear  in  our  own 
miiform.  — Jacob  Abbott:  The.  Corner-stone,  pp.  198-200. 

The  bigots  of  an  earUer  age  [the  Jews  of  Christ's  time]  were  accus- 
tomed to  speak  of  themselves  as  chosen  of  God,  before  all  meaner 
creatures,  holy  and  clean;  while  the  Gentile  nations  were  siimers 
beyond  the  reach  of  salvation,  reprobate  dogs.  And  why  was  this  ? 
It  was  because  they,  like  the  Pharisees  of  modem  times,  clung  to  the 
dogma,  "  out  of  their  church,  no  salration ; "  the  ktent  principle  of 
death  in  all  those  sects  wliich  have  embraced,  or  ever  do  embrace, 

such  a  creed E\ery  man  is  to  be  esteemed  who  honestly 

endeavors  to  give  a  reason  for  his  belief,  and  claims  the  freedom  of 
its  peaceful  enjoyment,  however  mistiken  or  absurd  he  may  be.  To 
despise  the  intellect  of  anotlier,  to  hint  liis  want  of  integrity,  or  to 
ridicule  his  con\'ictions  of  right,  is  but  poor  evidence  either  of  pliilo- 
sophiciil  judgment  or  Christiim  charity.  The  sj)irit  that  leagued  with 
an  emperor  and  excited  liira  to  murder  the  Anabaptists  of  Munster, 
burned  Servetus  at  Geneva,  hunted  lioger  AVilUams  beyond  the 
boundaries  of  civiliaitlon  with  no  less  sixvage  rage,  i)crsecuted  the  elder 
Carroll  in  Marylmd,  and  more  recently  burned  the  convent  at  Charles- 
town,  as  well  as  the  churches  of  I'hiladelpliiii,  is  part  and  parcel  of 
the  bigoted  priestcraft  that  dug  the  prisons  of  Venice  and  erected  the 
Inquisition  in  Sjxiin.  Milton  had  good  reason  for  asserting,  that 
"  Presbyter  is  but  old  i)riest  writ  large."  —  E.  L.  MaGOON  :  Republi- 
can Christianity,  j))).  131,  2o9. 

The  refusiil  to  exercise  forbearance,  and  the  attempt  to  ensure  a 
complete  unifonnity,  tend  necessarily  to  j)roduce,  and,  in  the  past 
history  of  tlie  clim'ch,  Ixave  actually  produced,  consequences  the  most 


THE  NATURE  AND  EVILS  OF   INTOJ.ERANCE.  Gj 

inj  irious  and  deplorable.  While  the  conduct  in  question  invohes  an 
audacious  invasion  of  the  prerog-atives  of  Jesus  Clu'ist,  by  making  new 
laws  for  his  church,  it  tends  inevitably  to  introduce  those  very  strifes 
and  divisions  which  it  professes  to  avert ;  it  checks  free  inquiry,  and 
nurses  a  spirit  of  tame  and  slavish  submission  to  human  authority ;  it 
leads  the  professors  of  rehgion  to  fix  their  regards  chiefly  on  subordi- 
nate topics  and  sectarian  peculiarities,  to  the  neglect  of  the  vital  truths 
of  the  gospel  and  "  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law ;  "  it  arrests  the 
current  of  brotherly  love,  or  turns  it  into  a  wrong  cLaimel,  by  divert- 
ing it  towards  those  who  reflect  our  own  views  and  sentiments  rather 
than  towards  those  who  exhibit  conspicuously  the  hneaments  of  the 
Saviom-'s  lovely  image.  All  these  baleful  effects  it  has  actually  pro- 
duced to  a  frightful  extent;  and,  in  addition,  it  has  sometimes 
occasioned  the  practice  of  an  unprincipled  laxity ;  for  the  members  of 
the  same  church  have  contented  themselves  with  an  agi'eement  in  a 
form  of  words,  while  yet  they  differed,  and  knew  that  they  differed, 
in  sentiment;  thus  tolerating  or  practising  vile  dissimulation  to 
avoid  an  avowed  and  honest  forbearance.  —  Dr.  Robert  Balmer  : 
The  Scripture  Principles  of  Unity ;  in  Essays  on  Christian  Union, 
pp.  51,  52. 

To  avoid  doing  an  apparent  injustice  to  Dr.  Balmer,  we  have  given  tae 
latter  sentence;  but,  though  heartily  agreeing  with  him  in  his  disapproval 
of"  an  unprincipled  laxity"  and  "vile  dissimulation"  as  to  matters  of  theo- 
logical opinion,  we  cannot  help  thinking  that  the  less  a  church  interferes 
respecting  the  private  sentiments  of  its  members,  and  the  more  it  attends  to 
the  purity  of  their  conversations  and  lives,  the  better  will  it  be  for  the  true 
interests  of  Christianity,  and  for  the  peace  and  happiness  of  man. 

Disputants  are  loudest  and  fiercest  where  God  says  least 

Notwithstanding  the  power  of  pul)lic  opinion  in  restraining  on  plat-t 
fonns,  and  in  the  pulpit,  the  exhibitions  of  a  ^vretched  sectarian  and 
proselytizing  spirit,  the  demon  is  not  cast  out,  and  appears  even  more 
horrid  when  it  is  seen  looking  from  beneath  the  veU  of  an  angeL 
Party  spmt  descends  meekly  from  the  pulpit,  and  takes  its  station  at 
the  head  of  the  Lord's  table,  and  from  thence  excommunicates  many 
ot  the  Lord's  people,  whom  a  few  minutes  before  it  pronoimced  to  be 
brethren  in  Christ  Jesus.  The  feast  of  love  is  made  the  feast  of 
schism ;  and  evangelical  denominations,  mthin  the  walls  of  their  own 
temples,  are  as  much  keen  partisans,  excommunicating  each  other,  as 
if  there  was  no  common  groimd  on  which  they  could  meet,  and  as  if 

all  but  themselves  were  given  over  to  Satan. Bigotry  and 

6* 


66  THE  NATURE  AND   EVILS   OF  INTOLERANCE. 

iectarianism  are  still  hot  and  scorching ;  only  they  are  now  ashamed 
of  their  real  nature,  and  have  put  on  ^-arious  disguises,  connected 
more  or  less  •w'ith  an  assumption  of  extraordinary  strictness  and  jjicty. 

When  the  men  of  the  world  see  professing  Cliristians  broken 

up  into  little  parties,  which  seem  to  liate  each  other  in  the  inverse  ratio 
in  which  they  are  agreed  on  the  great  cardinal  points  of  their  religion, 
they  are  naturally  led  to  consider  Christiamty  as  based,  to  a  consideral)le 
extent,  upon  pride  and  priestcraft.  When  they  meet  with  the  siune 
rivaLships  and  jealousies  among  saints  tliat  they  meet  with  among 
secular  men,  they  judge  of  them  by  the  same  standard.  "When  sect 
"  clashes  with  sect  as  harshly  and  unldndly  as  political  factions "  do, 
they  consider  all  religious  divisions  as  no  better  than  a  strife  for  power, 
drive  all  schismatics  out  of  their  presence,  and  turn  aside  altogether 
from  what  they  consider  a  lurking,  biting,  ])hrenetic  teligion.  The 
bitterness  with  which  theologians  will  spaik  and  wvhe  of  each  other, 
and  the  rancor  and  solemnity  with  which  they  will  excommunicate 
each  other  at  the  head  of  the  Lord's  table,  while  yet  they  are  con- 
fessedly one  in  Christ  Jesus,  is  to  worldly  pohticians  a  matter  of  utter 
loathing.  —  Dr,  Gavin  Strutiiers  :  Party  Spirit,  its  Prevalence  and 
Insidioiisness ;  in  Essays  on  Christian  Union,  pp.  381,  385,  391, 
439-40. 

The  deplorable  workings  and  effects  of  tlie  sectarian  spirit  are  pointed 
out  with  much  impartiality  in  the  Essay  from  which  we  have  made  tiie 
above  extract,  and  are  shown  not  to  be  peculiar  to  the  Roman  Catholic 
chiu-ch,  but  to  prevail  in  the  English  and  Scotch  establishments,  and  in  the 
various  "  evangelical "  bodies,  particularly  in  North  Britain,  which  have 
dissented  from  Papal  and  Protestant  Episcopacy.  Surelj',  if  men  who, 
forgetful  of  the  benevolent  spirit  of  the  Master  whom  the}-  profess  to  serve, 
and  of  the  whole  genius  of  his  religion  as  contained  in  the  New  Testament, 
look  down  with  supercilious  pride  upon  such  of  their  brethren  as  disagree 
with  them  merely  in  forms  of  church  government  and  in  subordinate  jjoints 
of  faith,  —  if  such  men,  to  whom  Christ's  commandment  of  love  seems  to 
be  still  almost  literally  "  new  "  or  unheard  of,  have  any  just  claim  to  be 
called  his  disciples,  or  jegarded  as  members  of  his  invisible  church,  — 
surely,  those  whom  they  pronounce  to  be  heterodox  or  unevangelical,  but 
who,  notwithstanding,  "love  the  Lord  Jesus  in  sincerity,"  and,  remembering 
his  precept,  "  By  this  shall  all  men  know  tliat  ye  are  my  disciples  if  ye  have 
love  one  to  another,"  would  not  confine  their  aiVections  and  their  sympathies 
to  Iheir  own  narrow  circle,  but  would  extend  them  to  all  who  "  nanui  the 
name  of  Christ,  and  depart  from  iniquity," — surely,  these  may  humbly 
hope  that  the  great  Koniuler  of  the  universal  church  will  permit  them  to 
Bit  at  his  feet  as  docile  and  reverent  disciples,  to  learn  more  of  his  heavenly 
mind,  and  drink  richer  draughts  of  his  holy  and  beuign  «Dirit. 


THE  WATCHWORDS  OF  PARTY  WARFARK.  67 


BECT.  Vl. — F.'UTn,  ORTHODOXY,  HERESY,  SCHISM,  AND  OTHER  TERMS. 
OFTEX  USED  AS  WATCHWORDS  OF   PARTY  WARFARE. 

They  prove  their  doctrine  orthodox 
By  ugly  words  and  blows  and  knocks. 

Samuel  Bctler,  modified. 

§  1.  Faith  and  Orthodoxy. 

Almost  all  sects  pretend  that  they  are  wiser  and  of  sounder  judg- 
ment than  all  the  Chi'istian  world  besides;  yea,  those  that  most 
palpably  contradict  the  Scriptures  (as  the  Papists  in  then*  half- 
commimion  and  unintelligible  ser^"ice),  and  have  no  better  reason  why 
they  so  believe  or  do  but  because  others  have  so  beheved  and  done 
ah'eady.  But  the  gi'eatest  pretenders  to  orthodoxness  are  not  the 
most  orthodox ;  and,  if  they  were,  I  can  value  them  for  that  which 
they  excel,  without  abating  my  due  respect  to  the  rest  of  the  church. 
For  the  whole  church  is  orthodox  in  all  the  essentials  of  Christianity, 
or  else  they  were  not  Christians ;  and  I  must  love  aU  that  are  Christians 
witli  that  special  love  that  is  due  to  the  members  of  Christ,  though  I 
must  superadd  such  esteem  for  those  that  are  a  Httle  \riser  or  better  than 
others,  as  they  deserve.  —  Richard  Baxter  :  Christian  Directory ;  in 
'  Works,  voL  ii.  p.  122. 

A  man  may  be  orthodox  in  every  point ;  he  may  not  only  espouse 
right  opinions,  but  zealously  defend  them  against  all  opj^osers ;  he  may 
think  justly  concerning  the  incarnation  of  oiu*  Lord,  concerning  the 
ever-blessed  Trinit)',  and  every  other  doctrine,  contained  in  the  oracles 
of  God ;  he  may  assent  to  all  the  three  Creeds,  —  that  called  the 
Apostles',  the  Nicene,  and  the  Athanasian ;  and  yet  it  is  possible  he 
may  have  no  rehgion  at  all,  no  more  than  a  Jew,  Turk,  or  Pagan.  — 
South  ;  apud  Southey's  Commonplace  Book,  second  series,  p.  16. 

Every  mean  person  who  Las  nothing  to  recommend  him  but  his 
orthodoxy,  and  owes  that  perhaps  wholly  to  his  ignorance,  will  tliink 
[if  you  venture  to  pubUsh  an  unlashional)le  opuiion]  he  has  a  right  to 
trample  upon  you  mth  contempt,  to  asperse  your  character  \rith 
virulent  reflections,  to  run  down  your  Avritings  as  mean  and  pitiable 
performances,  and  give  hard  names  to  opinions  which  he  does  not 
aiiderstand.  —  Bishop  Hare  :  Study  of  the  Scriptures ;  in  Sparks's 
Collection  of  Essays  and  Tracts,  vol.  ii.  p.  178. 


68  THE   WATCn^ORDS  OF   PARTY  WARFARE. 

Men  have  thought  it  an  honor  to  be  styled  tliat  wliich  they  call 
zealous  orthodox,  to  be  fii-mly  linked  to  a  certain  party,  to  load  others 
with  calumnies,  and  to  damn  by  an  absolute  authority  the  rest  of 
mankind,  but  have  taken  no  care  to  demonstrate  the  sincerity  and 
fervor  of  their  jjiety  by  an  exact  observation  [observance]  of  the 
gospel  morals;  wliich  hag  come  to  pass  by  reason  that  orthodoxy 
agrees  very  moU  Avith  our  passions,  whereas  the  severe  morals  of  the 
gospel  are  incompatil)le  Anth  our  way  of  living.  —  Le  Clerc  :  F^ve 
Letters  on  the  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  p.  108. 

As  to  orthodox,  I  should  be  glad  to  know  the  meaning  of  the 
epithet.  Nothing,  you  say,  can  be  plainer.  The  orthodox  are  those 
who,  in  religious  matters,  entertiiin  right  oj)inions.  Be  it  so.  How, 
then,  is  it  possible  I  should  know  who  they  are  tliat  entcrtiiin  right 
opinions,  before  I  know  what  o])inions  are  right  ?  I  must  therefore 
unquestionably  know  orthodoxy,  before  I  can  know  or  judge  who 
are  orthodox.  Now,  to  know  the  truths  of  religion,  which  you  call 
orthodox,  is  the  very  end  of  my  inquiries ;  and  am  I  to  begin  these 
inquiries   on   the  presumption,  that  without  any  inquiry  I  know  it 

already  ? There  is  notliing  about  which  men  have  been,  and 

still  are,  more  divided.  It  has  been  accounted  orthodox  divinity  in 
one  age,  which  hath  been  branded  as  ridicidous  fanaticism  in  the  next. 
It  is  at  this  day  deemed  the  perfection  of  ortliodoxy  in  one  countrj', 
wliich  in  an  adjacent  country  is  looked  upon  as  damnalile  heresy. 
Nay,  in  the  same  country,  hath  not  every  sect  a  stiindard  of  tlieu-  own  ? 
Accordingly,  when  any  jicrson  seriously  uses  the  word,  before  we  can 
understiind  his  meaning,  we  must  know  to  what  communion  he  belongs. 
When  that  is  known,  we  comprcliond  him  jjerfectly.  By  the  orthodox 
he  means  always  those  who  agree  in  ojjinion  Mith  liim  and  his  party ; 
and  by  the  heterodox,  those  who  differ  from  him.  When  one  says, 
then,  of  any  teacher  whatever,  that  all  the  orthodox  acknowledge  liis 
orthodoxy,  he  says  neither  more  nor  less  tlian  this,  "  All  who  are  of  the 
same  ojjinion  with  him,  of  which  number  I  am  one,  believe  him  to  be 
in  the  right."  And  is  tliis  any  thing  more  than  what  may  be  asserted 
by  some  person  or  other,  of  every  teacher  that  ever  did  or  ever  will 
exist  ?  ...  To  say  the  truth,  we  have  but  too  many  ecclesi;istic  terms 
and  j)hrases  which  savor  grossly  of  the  arts  of  a  crafty  ])riesthood, 
who  meant  to  keep  the  world  in  ignorance  to  secure  an  implicit  faith 
in  their  own  dogmas,  and  to  intimidate  men  from  an  impartial  iiiciuiry 
into  holy  writ  —  Du.  Gi;orge  Camphell  :  Lectures  on  Systematic 
Theology  and  Pvlpit  Eloquence,  pp.  112-15. 


THE  WATCHWORDS  OF   PARTY  WARFARE.  69 

A  suspicion  of  fallibility  would  have  been  an  useful  principle  to  the 
professors  of  Christianity  in  every  age :  it  would  have  choked  the  spirit 
of  persecution  in  its  birth,  and  have  rendered  not  only  the  church  of 
Rome,  but  every  church  in  Christendom,  more  shy  of  assuming  to 
itself  the  proud  title  of  orthodox,  and  of  branding  every  other  with  the 
opprobrious  one  of  heterodox,  than  any  of  them  have  hitherto  been. 
...  It  is  difficult  for  any  man  entirely  to  divest  himself  of  all  pre- 
judice ;  but  he  may  surely  take  care,  tliat  it  be  not  accompanied  with 
an  uncharitable  propensity  to  stigmatize  with  reproachful  appelktions 
those  who  cannot  measure  the  rectitude  of  the  divine  dispensations  by 
his  rule,  nor  seek  their  way  to  heaven  by  insisting  on  the  path  which 
he,  in  his  overweening  wisdom,  has  arrogantly  presented  as  the  only 

one  which  can  lead  men  thither What  is  this  tiling  called 

orthodox]],  which  mars  the  fortunes  of  honest  men,  misleads  the  judg- 
ment of  princes,  and  occasionally  endangers  the  stability  of  thrones  ? 
In  the  true  meaning  of  the  term,  it  is  a  sacred  thing  to  which  every 
denomination  of  Christians  lays  an  arrogant  and  exclusive  claim,  but 
to  which  no  man,  no  assembly  of  men,  since  the  apostolic  age,  can 
prove  a  title.  —  Bishop  Watson  :  Preface  to  Theological  Tracts, 
voL  i.  pp.  XV.  xvii. ;  and  Life,  p.  45 1. 

The  most  ardent  zeal,  the  most  pertinacious  obstinacy,  is  displayed 
in  preserving  the  minutest  article  of  what  is  called  orthodox  opinion. 
But,  alas !  what,  in  a  world  of  woe  like  this,  —  what  signifies  our 
boasted  orthodoxy  in  matters  of  mere  speculation,  in  matters  totally 
irrelevant  to  human  happiness  or  misery  ?  What  signifies  a  jealous 
vigiknce  over  thirty-nine  articles,  if  we  neglect  one  article,  —  the  law 
of  charity  and  love ;  if  we  overlook  the  "  weightier  matters  "  wliich 
Christ  himself  enacted  as  articles  of  his  religion,  indispensably  to  be 
subscribed  by  all  who  hope  for  salvation  in  him ;  I  mean  forgiveness 
of  injuries,  mercy,  philanthropy,  humility  ?  —  ViCESlMUS  IvN'OX  : 
Preface  to  Aniipolemus ;  in  Works,  vol.  v.  pp.  417-18. 

Let  us  recollect,  that  speculations,  however  sound  in  their  princi- 
ples, however  exact  in  their  process,  and  however  important  in  their 
results,  are  insufficient  to  fill  up  the  measure  of  our  duty,  if  they 
terminate  solely  in  oiu^  inward  persuasion,  or  in  outward  profession,  or 
in  transient  though  ardent  feehng,  or  in  mere  orthodoxy,  be  it  real 
or  imaginary.  —  Dr.  Samuel  Parr  :  Sermon  on  Faith ;  in  Works, 
voL  v.  p.  361. 

In  the  New  Testament,  the  absolute  subser\iency  of  doctrinal  state- 
ments ^■o  the  formation  of  the  principles  and  habits  of  practiciil  piety 


70  THE  WATCHWORDS  OF  PARTY  WARFARE. 

is  never  lost  sight  of:  we  are  continually  reminded,  that  obedience  is 
the  end  of  all  knowledge  and  of  all  religious  impressions.  But  the 
tendency,  it  is  to  be  feared,  of  much  pojDuLar  and  orthodox  instruction 
is  to  bestow  on  the  belief  of  certain  doctrines,  combined  with  strong 
religious  emotion,  the  importance  of  an  ultimate  object,  to  the  neglect 
of  that  great  principle,  that  "  circumcision  is  nothing,  and  imcircum- 
cision  nothing,  but  the  keeping  of  the  commandments  of  God."  — 
RoBEKT  Hall:  Preface  to  Antinomianism  Unmasked;  in  Works, 
vol.  ii.  p.  461. 

Orthodoxy  bv  itself  does  not  touch  the  conscience  —  does  not 
quicken  the  affections :  it  does  not  connect  itself  in  any  mamier  mth 
the  moral  taculties.  It  is  not  a  religion,  but  a  theory ;  and,  imsmuch 
as  it  awakens  no  spiritual  feelings,  it  consists  easily  either  with  the 
grossest  absurdities  or  ydxh.  the  grossest  corruptions.  Orthodoxy, 
powerless  when  alone,  becomes  even  efficient  for  evil  at  the  moment 
when  it  combines  itself  with  asceticism,  superstition,  and  hierarcliical 
ambition.  What  is  the  religious  history  of  Eiu-ope,  thi-ough  a  long 
course  of  time,  but  a  nan-ative  of  the  horrors  and  the  innnoralities 
that  have  sprung  from  tliis  very  combination  ?  —  Is.VAC  Taylor  : 
Lectures  on  Spiritual  Christianity,  pp.  100-1. 

This  writer,  however,  holds  Orthodoxy,  or  Trinitarianism,  to  be  the  basis 
of  all  Christian  piety. 

Let  us,  in  explanation  of  the  term  "faith,"  advert  to  the  vnde 
distinction  which  olitiiins  between  the  popular  imagination  of  what  it 
is,  and  the  apostle's  definition  of  what  it  is.  The  common  conception 
about  it  is,  that  it  consists  in  a  correct  apprcliension  of  the  trutlis  of 
theology,  or  soundness  of  belief  as  opposed  to  error  of  belief.  It 
ajjpears  to  be  a  very  prevalent  impression,  that  faith  lies  in  our  judging 
rightly  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  or  that  we  bive  a  proper  under- 
stiuuling  of  them.  And,  in  this  way,  the  jjrivilcges  annexed  to  faith 
in  the  New  Testimient  are  very  apt  to  be  regarded  as  a  sort  of  rcmu- 
.leration  for  the  soundness  of  our  orthodoxy.  Heaven  is  viewed  as  a 
kind  of  reward,  if  not  for  the  worth  of  our  doings,  at  least  for  the 
worth  and  the  justness  of  our  dogmata.  Under  the  old  economy, 
eternal  life  was  held  out  as  a  return  to  us  for  right  practice.  Under 
the  new  economy,  is  it  conceived  by  many,  that  it  is  held  out  to  us  as 
a  return  for  riglit  thinking.  Figure  two  theologians  to  be  listed,  the 
one  against  tlie  other,  in  controversy.  He  who  espouses  error  is 
estira  vted  to  be  a  heretic,  and  WvUiting  in  the  fliitli.     He  who  espouses 


THE  WATCHWORDS  OF  PARTY    WARFARE.  71 

truth  is  estimated  to  be  a  sound  believer,  so  that  his  laith  resolves 
itself  into  the  accuracy  of  his  creed.  It  is  not,  "  Do  this,  and  you 
shall  hve ; "  but  it  is,  "  Think  thus,  and  you  shall  Hve ; "  and  this 
seems  to  be  the  popular  and  prevaiHng  imagination  of  being  saved  by 
faith,  and  being  justified  by  taith.  Now,  look  to  the  apostohcal 
detinition  of  taith,  as  being  the  "  substtmce  of  tilings  hoped  for,  and 
the  evidence  of  things  not  seen."  ....  Let  us  look  to  it,  not  as  the 
mere  acquiescence  of  the  understanding  in  the  dogmata  of  any  sound 
or  recoajnized  creed,  but  as  that  which  brings  the  future  and  the  yet 
unseen  of  revelation  so  home  to  the  mind,  as  that  the  mind  is  filled 
with  a  sense  of  their  reaUty,  and  actually  proceeds  upon  it.  —  Db 
Thom-ys  Chalmers  :  Select  Works,  vol  i.  pp.  410-11. 

It  may  be  safely  affirmed,  tliat  no  weak  and  faUible  man  ever  yet 
held  the  whole  of  revealed  truth  free  fi-om  the  slightest  mistake  or 
defect.  The  bigot,  however,  wiU  mtike  no  such  confession.  He 
maintains  and  defends  his  own  creed  as  being  perfect.  It  is  the  very 
type  of  truth.  He  condemns  every  man  either  as  not  holding  the 
truth,  or  as  holding  it  in  a  very  defective  way,  who  does  not  see  with 
his  eyes,  and  believe  ^vith  his  heart.  All  must  he  down  on  the  bed  of 
orthodoxy  which  he  has  spread,  and  be  conformed  to  it  in  length  and 
breadth;  othermse  he  must  be  cast  out  of  the  church  as  a  heretic, 
and  shunned  as  if  infected  with  leprosy.  —  Dr.  Ga\7N  Struthers  : 
Party  Spirit ;  in  Essays  on  Christian  Union,  p.  420. 

§  2.  Heresy  and  Schism. 

It  is  a  vain  thing  to  talk  of  a  heretic ;  for  a  man  for  his  heart 
can  think  no  otherwise  than  he  does  think.  In  the  primitive  times, 
there  were  many  opinions,  nothuig  scarce  but  some  one  or  other  held. 
One  of  these  opinions  being  embraced  by  some  prince,  and  received 
into  his  kingdom,  the  rest  were  condemned  as  heresies;  and  his 
religion,  which  was  but  one  of  the  several  opinions,  first  is  said  to 
be  orthodox,  and  so  have  continued  ever  since  the  apostles.  —  John 
SeI-de.\  :  TaUc  Talk :  art.  4,  Opinion. 

The  word  "  heresy  "  is  used  in  Scripture  in  a  good  sense,  for  a  sect 
or  division  of  opinion ;  or  sometimes  in  a  bad  sense,  for  a  false  opinion, 
signally  condemned.  But  no  heresies  are  noted  in  Scripture  but  such 
as  are  great  errors  practical,  such  whose  doctrines  taught  impiety,  or 
such  who  denied  the  coming  of  Christ  directly  or  by  consequence ; 
aot  remote  or  whedra\\'n,  but  prime  and  immediate.     Heresy  is  not 


72  THE   WATCHWORDS   OF   PARTY   WARFARE. 

an  error  of  the  understanding,  but  an  error  of  tlie  will ;  and  this  is 
clearly  insinuated  in  Scrii)turc,  in  the  style  whereof  faith  and  a  good 
life  are  made  one  duty,  and  ^-ice  is  aiUed  opposite  to  faith,  and  heresy 
0])posed  to  holiness  and  sanctity.  Indeed,  if  we  remember  that 
St.  Paul  reckons  heresy  amongst  the  works  of  the  Hcsh,  and  ranks  it 
with  all  manner  of  practical  impieties,  we  shall  easily  perceive,  that, 
if  a  man  mingles  not  a  vice  with  his  opinion,  —  if  he  be  innocent 
in  his  life,  though  deceived  in  his  doctrine,  —  his  error  is  his  misery, 
not  his  crime.  Now,  every  man  that  errs,  though  in  a  matter  of 
consequence,  so  long  as  the  foundation  is  entire,  cannot  be  suspected 
justly  guilty  of  a  crime  to  give  his  error  a  fonnality  of  heresy.  If  his 
error  be  not  voluntary,  and  part  of  an  ill  life,  —  then,  because  he  lives 
a  good  life,  he  is  a  good  man,  and  therefore  no  heretic.  A  wicked 
person  in  his  error  becomes  heretic,  when  the  good  man  in  the  s;ime 
error  sliall  have  all  the  rewards  of  faith.  For  whatever  an  ill  man 
believes,  if  he  therefore  beheve  it  because  it  serves  his  own  ends,  be 
his  belief  true  or  false,  the  man  hath  an  heretical  mind ;  for,  to  sen'e 
his  o^vn  ends,  his  mind  is  prepared  to  believe  a  lie.  But  a  good 
man  that  believes  what,  according  to  his  light  and  upon  the  use  of  liis 
moral  industry,  he  thinks  true,  whether  he  hits  upon  the  right  or 
no,  —  beciiuse  he  hatli  a  mind  desirous  of  trutli,  and  prepared  to 
believe  every  truth,  is  therefore  acceptable  to  God,  beciiuse  nothing 
hindereth  him  from  it  but  what  he  could  not  help.  A  man  may 
maintain  an  opinion  that  is  in  itself  damnable,  and  yet  he  —  not 
knowing  it  so,  and  being  invincibly  led  into  it  —  may  go  to  heaven : 
his  ojjinion  shall  bum,  and  himself  be  saved.  However,  I  find  no 
opinions  in  Scrij)ture  called  "  damnable "  but  what  are  impious  in 
vmieria  pradica,  or  entirely  destructive  of  the  faith  or  the  body  of 
Christianity,  such  of  which  St.  I'etor  speaks,  chaj).  ii.  1.  —  Al)ridged 
from  Ji:ui:my  Taylor  :  Liherli/  of  Prophesy  hi!};,  sect.  ii.  2,  8,  12,  22, 
36;  in  fforks,  vol.  vii.  pp.  456,  461-2,  466,  4S0,  492. 

]  )eluded  people !  that  do  not  consider,  that  the  greatest  heresy  in 
the  world  is  a  wicked  life,  because  it  is  so  directly  and  fundamontiilly 
opposite  to  the  whole  design  of  the  Christian  iiiith  and  religion ;  and 
that  do  not  consider,  that  (iod  will  sooner  forgive  a  man  a  hundred 
defects  of  his  understanding  than  one  fault  of  his  will.  —  Archbishop 
TiLL(nso.\:  Sermon  34;  in  f  forks,  vol.  ii.  p.  333,  Loud.  edit,  of  1748. 

Hear  me  with  that  remnant  of  meekness  and  humihty  which  thou 
hast  left,  thou  confident,  bitter,  censorious  man!  Why  must  that 
man  needs  be  taken  for  a  heretic ;  a  schismatic ;  a  refractory,  stubborn. 


THE  WATCHWORDS  OF   PARTY   WARFARE.  73 

self-willed  i)crson ;  an  anticliristian,  carrual,  formal  man,  who  is  not  of 
thy  opinion  in  point  of  a  controversy,  of  a  form,  of  an  order,  of  a 
circumstance,  or  subscription,  or  such  liJce  ?  It  is  possible  it  may  be 
so ;  and  it  is  possible  thou  mayest  be  more  so  thyself.  But  hast  thou 
so  patiently  heai'^  all  tliat  he  hath  to  say,  and  so  clearly  discerned  the 
truth  on  thy  own  side,  and  that  this  truth  is  made  so  evident  to  him 
as  that  nothing  but  wilful  obstinacy  can  resist  it,  as  will  warrant  all 
thy  censures  and  contemj)t  ?  or  is  it  not  an  overvaluing  of  thy  own 
underst;\nding  which  makes  thee  so  easily  condemn  all  as  insufferable 

that  differ  ft'om  it  ? Moreover,  your  course  is  contrary  to 

Christian  humihty,  and  ])roclaimeth  the  most  abominable  pride  of  the 
dividers.  That  you  should  call  all  the  rest  of  the  world  schismatics 
and  heretics,  and  say  that  none  are  Christians  but  you,  —  why,  what 
are  you  above  other  men,  that  you  should  say,  "  Come  not  near  me : 
I  am  hoUer  than  you  "  ?  Have  none  in  the  world,  tliink  you,  faith, 
hope,  and  charity,  but  you  ?  Can  you  indeed  believe  that  none  shall 
be  saved  but  you  ?  Alas  that  you  should  not  only  so  much  overlook 
God's  graces  in  your  brethren,  but  also  be  so  insensible  of  your  own 
infinnities  !  Have  you  so  many  eiTors  and  sins  among  you,  and  yet 
are  none  of  the  chm-ch  but  you  ?  —  Richard  Baxter  :  Practical 
Works,  vol.  XV.  pp.  1 16-17 ;  and  vol.  xvi.  pp.  323-4. 

Why  are  not  ecclesiastical  bodies  as  rigid  and  severe  against  heresies 
of  practice  as  they  are  against  heresies  of  speculation  .P  Certainly  there 
are  heresies  in  morahty  as  well  as  in  theology.  Coimcils  and  s}'nods 
reduce  tlie  doctrines  of  faith  to  certtiin  propositional  points,  and  thun- 
der anathemas  against  all  who  refuse  to  subscribe  them.  They  say, 
"  Cursed  be  he  who  does  not  believe  the  Divinity  of  Christ ;  cursed  be 
he  who  does  not  believe  the  hypostatical  union,  and  the  mystery  of  the 
cross ;  cursed  be  he  who  denies  the  inward  operations  of  gi^ace,  and 
the  irresistible  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Spirit  1 "  I  wish  they  would  make 
a  few  canons  against  moral  heresies.  How  many  are  there  of  this 
kind  among  our  people!  —  James  Saiirin  :  Sermons,  vol.  ii.  p.  17. 

How  much  soever  of  a  schismatical  or  heretical  spirit,  in  the 
apostolic  sense  of  the  terms  ["  schism "  and  "  heresy  "],  may  have 
contributed  to  the  formation  of  the  different  sects  into  which  the 
Cliristian  world  is  at  present  divided,  no  person  who,  in  the  spirit  of 
Rmdor  and  charity,  adheres  to  that  which,  to  the  best  of  his  judgment, 
is  right,  though  m  tliis  opinion  he  should  be  mistaken,  is,  in  the 
Scriptural  sense,  either  schismatic  or  heretic ;  and  he,  on  the  contrary, 
whatever  sect  he  belong  to,  is  more  entitled  to  these  odious  appella- 

7 


/ 


74  THE   WATCIITTORDS   OF    PARTY   WARFARE. 

tions,  who  is  most  apt  to  tlirow  the  imputition  upon  otliers.  Both 
terms,  for  they  denote  only  different  degrees  of  the  same  Iwd  quality 
always  indicate  a  disposition  and  practice  unfriendly  to  peace,  harnioJiV, 
and  love.  —  Dr.  George  Campbell  :  7%e  Four  Gospels,  Diss.  Lx. 
part  iv.  sect.  15. 

Who  authorized  either  you  or  the  pseudo-Athanasius  to  interpret 
catholic  foith  by  belief,  arising  out  of  the  ajjparent  predominance  of  the 
grounds  for,  over  those  against,  the  truth  of  the  positions  asserted ;  much 
more,  by  behef  as  a  mere  passive  acquiescence  of  the  understiuiding  ? 
Were  all  damned  who  died  during  the  jjcriod  when  totus  fert  mundus 
/actus  est  Arianus,  as  one  of  the  Fathers  admits  ?  Aiis !  alas !  how 
long  will  it  be  ere  Christians  take  the  plain  middle  road  between  into- 
lerance and  indifference,  by  adopting  the  literal  sense  and  Scriptural 
import  of  heresy,  that  is,  ^^•ilful  error,  or  behef  originating  in  some 
perversion  of  the  will ;  and  of  heretics  (for  such  there  are,  nay,  even 
orthodox  heretics),  that  is,  men  wilfully  imconscious  of  their  own 
wilfulness,  in  their  limpet-like  adhesion  to  a  flivorite  tenet?  —  Samuel 
Taylor  Coleridge  :  Literary  Remains ;  in  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  386-7, 
as  eaiitd  by  Professor  Shedd. 

We  know  no  greater  heresy  than  minecessarily  to  dinde  good  men, 
nor  any  object  more  worthy  of  ambition  than  to  conciliate  and  unite 
them.  Let  the  profane  calumniate;  let  the  sceptic  deride;  let  the 
bigot  frown ;  let  the  base  and  interested  partisan  seek  to  cover  with 
unmerited  dishonor  all  who  cannot  lend  themselves  to  the  sujjport  of 
his  darling  peculiarities,  or  his  still  more  darling  emoluments :  but  the 
Christian  should  endeavor,  above  all  things,  to  present  in  his  own  pnv/- 
tice,  and  so  to  win  upon  his  brethren  thiit  they  may  equally  present  in 
theirs,  the  all-attractive  spectacle  of  fidehty,  tempered  with  goodness, 
and  blended  with  humility  and  love.  —  Dr.  Hobert  Stephens  M'All  : 
Discourses,  vol.  i.  p.  300. 

Dr.  M'AuL  was  an  English  Iiulcpendent,  or  Ortliodox  Consrcjr-'^t'fnJilist, 
whose  Discourses  were  edited  after  his  death  by  the  celebrated  Wnrdlaw. 
They  are  replete  with  Christian  sentiment,  expressed  in  a  high  tone  of 
eloquence. 

Meantime,  I  wish  to  remind  you,  that  one  of  St  Paul's  favorite 
notions  of  heiesy  is  "a  doting  about  strifes  of  words."  One  side  may 
be  right  in  such  a  strife,  and  the  other  wrong;  but  both  are  herctie.il 
as  to  Christianity,  beaiuse  they  lead  men's  minds  away  from  the  love 
of  (jod  and  of  Christ  to  questions  essentially  tempting  to  the  intel- 
lect, and  wlilch  ten  J   to  no  jn-ofit  towards  godliness.     And,  agiin,  I 


THE  WATCHWORDS  OF   PARTY  WARFARE.  75 

think  you  will  find  that  all  the  "  false  doctrines "  spoken  of  by  the 
apostles  are  doctrines  of  sheer  wickedness ;  that  their  counterpart  in 
modem  times  is  to  be  found  in  the  Anabaptists  of  Munster,  or  the 
Fifth  Monarchy  men,  or  in  mere  secular  high  churchmen  or  hj'po* 
critical  evangelicals,  —  in  those  who  make  Christianity  minister  to  lust, 
or  to  covetousness,  or  to  ambition ;  not  in  those  who  interpret  Scriptm'e 
to  the  best  of  their  conscience  and  ability,  be  their  interpretation  ever 
so  erroneous.  .  .  .  Make  the  chm-ch  a  living  and  active  society,  like 
that  of  the  first  Christians,  and  then  differences  of  opinion  will  either 
cease,  or  will  signify  nothing.  Look  through  the  Epistles,  and  you 
will  find  nothing  there  condemned  as  heresy  but  what  was  mere 
wickedness,  if  you  consider  the  real  nature  and  connection  of  the 
tenets  condemned.  For  such  difl'erences  of  opinion  as  exist  among 
Christians  now,  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  the  Romans  is  the  applicable 
lesson;  not  such  passages  as  Tit.  iii.  10,  or  2  Jolm  10,  11,  or  Jude  3 
(that  much  abused  verse),  or  19  or  23.  There  is  one  anathema  which 
is,  indeed,  holy  and  just,  and  most  profitable  for  ourselves  as  well  as 
for  others,  1  Cor.  xvi.  22 ;  but  this  is  not  the  anathema  of  a  fond 
theology.  —  Dr.  Tuomas  Aknold  :  Letters  70,  71;  in  Life  and 
Correspondence,  pp.  221-2. 

If  persons  make  their  own  crotchets  articles  of  faith,  and  insist 
upon  a  perfect  uniformity  where  it  is  not  insisted  upon  by  Jesus,  they 
are  schismatics  of  the  very  worst  stamp,  while  yet  they  are  proclaiming 
themselves  strenuous  advocates  for  the  truth.  —  Gavin  Struthers  : 
Party  Spirit,  its  Prevcdence  and  Insidioiisncss ;  in  Essays  on  Chris- 
tian Union,  p.  420. 


Such  sentiments  are  honorable  alike  to  the  heads  and  the  hearts  ol  those 
who  penned  them.  They  are  the  deductions  of  sound  reason,  or  the  out- 
bursts of  virtuous  indignation,  against  the  dicta  of  a  presumptuous  and  an 
impious  Infallibility,  which  decides,  by  feeling  and  prejudice  and  passion, 
what  are  truth  and  error,  saving  faith  and  damnable  opinion.  They  may  be 
regarded  as  indirect  testimonies  to  the  value  of  Christian  Unitarianism;  for, 
attached  as  the  witnesses  were  to  Trinitarian  doctrines,  they  clung  still 
more  devotedly  to  the  principles  of  Christian  charitj-;  and  these  principles 
are  surely  better  promoted  by  a  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  One  Universal 
Father,  who  "  is  Love,"  than  by  that  of  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
with  its  accompanying  tenets.  Happily,  however,  for  Christendom,  the 
wisdom  and  goodness  which  are  the  legitimate  fruits  of  gospel  simplicity 
have  a  more  powerful  influence  on  the  hearts  and  conduct  of  many  of  the 
professors  of  reputed  Orthodoxy,  than  the  barren  crudities,  the  metaphysical 
absurdities,  and  infcdUble  dogmas  of  creeds. 


76  TUE  CONSTITUENTS  OF  TILE   CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 


SECT.  Vn.  —  THE   CONSTITUENTS   OF   THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH. 
WISE  AND  GOOD   MEN   IN  ALL   DENOMINATIONS. 

Wliat  is  a  Church?  —  Let  Truth  and  Reason  speak, 
They  would  reply,  "'  The  faithful,  poor,  and  meek, 
From  Christian  folds;  the  one  selected  race, 
Of  all  professions,  and  in  every  place." 

Crabbb. 

He  that  fears  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  walks  humbly  before 
him,  thankfully  lays  hold^  of  the  message  of  redemption  by  Christ 
J(!sus,  strives  to  express  his  thiinlifulness  by  the  sincerity  of  his  obe- 
dience, is  soiTV  with  all  his  soul  when  he  comes  short  of  his  dutj', 
wallvs  watchfull}'  in  the  denial  of  himself,  and  holds  no  confederacy 
with  any  lust  or  known  sin ;  if  he  falls  in  the  least  measure,  is  restless 
till  he  hath  made  his  peace  by  true  repentance,  is  true  to  his  promise, 
just  in  his  actions,  charitable  to  the  poor,  sincere  in  his  devotions ; 
that  will  not  deliberately  dishonor  God,  though  with  the  greitest 
security  of  impunity ;  that  hath  his  hope  in  heaven,  and  his  conversa- 
tion in  heaven ;  that  dare  not  do  an  unjust  &ct,  though  never  so  much 
to  his  advantage,  —  and  all  this  because  he  sees  Him  that  is  in^^sil)le, 
and  fears  him  because  he  loves  him ;  fears  him  as  well  for  his  good- 
ness as  his  greatness,  —  such  a  man,  whether  he  be  an  Episcopal,  or 
a  Presbyterian,  or  an  Independent,  or  a  Baptist ;  whether  he  weai"s  a 
8urj)hce,  or  weai's  none;  whether  he  hears  organs,  or  hears  none; 
whether  he  kneels  at  the  communion,  or  for  conscience'  sake  stands  or 
sits,  —  he  hath  the  life  of  religion  in  lum,  and  that  lil'e  acts  in  him, 
and  will  conform  his  soul  to  tiie  image  of  his  Sa\'iour,  and  walk  along 
with  him  to  eternity,  notwithstiuuling  his  practice  or  non-pmctice  of 
these  indifferents.  —  Sir  Matthew  H.'U.e  :  A  Discourse  of  Religion, 
pp.  33-4,  Lond.  1684. 

It  is  a  hard  ease  that  we  should  think  all  Papists  and  Anabaptists 
and  Sacramentiries  to  be  fools  and  wicked  jjersons.  Cert^iinly,  among 
all  these  sects,  there  are  very  many  wise  mgn  and  good  men,  as  well 
as  erring.  And  although  some  ...  do  not  tliink  their  auversaries 
look  Hke  other  men,  yet  cerkiinly  we  find,  by  the  results  of  Ineir  dis- 
courses and  the  transactions  of  their  affairs  of  chil  society,  that  they 
are  men  that  speak  and  make  s\llogisms,  and  use  reason,  and  read 
Scripture ;  and  although  they  do  no  more  understand  all  of  it  than  we 
do,  yet  they  endeavor  to  understmd  as  much  as  concerns  them,  even 
all  that  they  can,  even  all  tliat  concerns  repentance  from  dead  worksi 


WISE  AND  GOOD  MEN   IN   ALL  DENOMINATIONS.  77 

and  foith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  And,  therefore,  metloinlvs  this 
also  should  be  another  consideration  distinguishing  the  persons ;  for, 
if  the  persons  be  Christians  in  theu*  lives,  and  Christians  m  their  pro- 
fession, —  if  they  acknowledge  the  eternal  Son  of  God  for  their  Master 
and  their  Lord,  and  live  in  all  relations  as  becomes  persons  making 
such  professions,  —  why,  then,  should  I  hate  such  persons  whom  God 
•oves,  and  who  love  God ;  who  are  partakers  of  Christ,  and  Christ  hath 
a  title  to  them ;  who  dwell  in  Christ,  and  Christ  in  them,  —  beaiuse 
their  imderstandings  have  not  been  brought  up  like  mine,  have  not 
had  the  same  masters  ?  &c.  —  Jeremy  Taylor  :  Epist.  Dedic.  to  the 
Liberty  of  Prophesying ;  in  Works,  vol.  vii.  p.  ccccii. 

There  is  but  one  universal  church  of  Chi'istLans  in  the  world,  of 
which  Chiist  is  the  only  King  and  Head,  and  every  Christian  is  a 
member.  ...  If  thou,  hast  faith  and  love  and  the  Spirit,  tliou  art 
certainly  a  Christian,  and  a  member  of  Chi-ist  and  of  tliis  univers;il 
chm'ch  of  Christians.  .  .  .  Thou  art  not  saved  for  being  a  memlier  of 
the  chm'ch  of  Rome  or  Corinth  or  Ephesus  or  Philippi  or  Thessa- 
lomca,  or  of  any  other  church,  but  for  being  a  member  of  the  universal 
church  or  body  of  Chi-ist ;  that  is,  a  Christian.  —  Richard  Baxter  : 
Christian  Directory ;  in  Practical  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  138. 

We  should  be  so  far  from  lessening  the  number  of  true  Christians, 
and  fi'om  confining  the  chui'ch  of  Christ  within  a  narrow  compass,  so 
as  to  exclude  out  of  its  communion  the  far  greatest  part  of  the  profes- 
sors of  Christianity,  that,  on  the  contraiy,  we  should  enlarge  the 
kingdom  of  Clu-ist  as  much  as  we  can,  and  extend  om-  charity  to  all 
churches  and  Christians,  of  wLit  denomination  soever,  as  far  as  regard 
to  truth  and  to  the  foimdiitions  of  the  Cimstian  reHgion  will  permit 
us  to  believe  and  hope  well  of  them ;  and  rather  be  contented  to  err  a 
little  on  the  fiivorable  and  charitable  part,  than  to  be  mistaken  on  the 
censorious  and  damning  side.  —  ARCHBISHOP  TiLLOTSON  :  Serm.  3 1 ; 
iJi  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  266. 

Men's  different  capacities  and  opportunities  and  tempers  and  edu- 
cation considered,  it  is  in  vain  to  expect  that  all  good  men  should 
agree  in  all  their  notions  of  religion,  any  more  than  we  see  they  do  in 
any  other  concerns  whatsoever.  And  who  am  I  that  I  should  d;ire  to 
pronounce  a  sentence  of  reprobation  against  any  one  in  whom  there 
appear  all  the  other  characters  of  an  himible,  upright,  smcere  Chi-istian, 
only  because  he  has  not  perhaps  met  with  the  same  information,  or 
read  the  same  books,  or  does  not  argue  the  same  way ;  in  a  word, 
because  he  is  not  so  wise,  or,  it  may  be  is  wiser  than  I  am,  and  sew 

7* 


78  TOE  CONSTITUENTS  OF   THE  CIIIIISTI.VN'   CHURCH 

farther  than  I  do,  and  therefore  is  not  exactly  of  my  opuiion  in  every 
thing  ?  .  .  .  Men's  understandings  are  different,  and  they  will  argue 
different  ways,  and  entertain  different  o{)inions  from  one  another,  about 
the  same  things,  and  yet  may  nevertheless  deserve  on  all  sides  to  be 
esteemed  very  good  and  wise  men  for  all  that.  — Akchbisuop  Wakf  • 
Sennons  and  Diicourses,  pp.  184-5. 

It  is  to  be  regretted,  that,  afterwards  in  the  same  discourse,  this  distin- 
guished prelate  seems  disposed  to  confine  his  Clu-istian  charity,  here  so 
liberally  expressed,  only  to  Protestauts  who  are  agreed  as  to  the  "funda- 
mentals of  faith." 

I  think  I  have  but  one  objection  against  your  proceedings,  —  your 
insisting  only  on  Presbyterian  government,  exclusive  of  all  other  wziys 
of  worshipping  God.  Will  not  this,  dear  sir,  necessarily  lead  you, 
whenever  you  get  the  upper  hand,  to  oppose  and  pei-secute  all  that 
differ  fi'om  you  in  their  church  government,  or  outward  way  of  wor- 
shipjjing  (}od  ?  .  .  .  For  my  omii  i)art,  though  I  profess  myseff  a  mmi- 
ster  of  tiie  chiu'ch  of  Engknd,  I  am  of  a  aitholic  spirit ;  and,  if  I  see 
a  man  who  Icves  the  Lord  Jesus  in  sincerity,  I  am  not  very  solicitous 
to  M-hat  outward  communion  he  belongs.  —  Geouge  AVillTEFlELD : 
Letter  150 ;  tn  Works,  vol.  i.  j).  140. 

Persons  may  be  quite  right  in  their  opinions,  and  yet  have  no 
religion  at  all ;  and,  on  the  other  liand,  persons  may  be  truly  religious, 
who  hold  many  ^vl•ong  opinions.  Can  any  one  jjossibly  doubt  of  this, 
wliile  there  are  Romanists  in  the  world  ?  For  who  can  deny,  not  only 
that  many  of  them  formerly  have  been  truly  religious  (as  Thomas  k 
Kemjjis,  Gregory  Lopez,  and  the  Marquis  de  llenty),  but  that  many 
of  them,  even  at  this  day,  are  real,  inward  'Christians  ?  And  yet  what 
a  heap  of  erroneous  opinions  do  they  hold,  delivered  by  tmdition  from 
their  fathers !  Nay,  who  am  doubt  of  it  while  there  arc  Culvinists  in 
the  world,  —  assertors  of  absolute  jjrcdcstination  ?  For  who  will  dare 
to  affirm,  that  none  of  these  are  truly  reUgious  men  ?  Not  only  many 
of  them  in  the  last  century  were  burning  and  shining  lights,  but 
many  of  them  are  now  real  Christians,  lonng  God  and  all  mankind. 
And  yet  what  are  all  the  absurd  opinions  of  all  the  Romanists  in  the 
world,  conijjared  to  that  one,  that  the  God  of  love,  the  wise,  just, 
merciful  Father  of  the  spirits  of  all  ilosh,  luis  from  all  eternity  fixed  an 
absolute,  unchangeable,  irresistil)le  decree,  that  jjart  of  mankind  shall 
be  saved,  do  what  they  will,  and  the  rest  dannied,  do  wiiat  tliey  can  ?  -  •  • 
ioilS  Wesley:  Sermon  GU;  in  f forks,  vol.  ii.  p.  20. 


WISE  AND  UOOD  MEN  IN  ALL  DENOMINATIONS.        79 

To  every  truly  pious  and  consistent  Christian,  literate  or  illiterate, 
he  [the  Author  of  the  "  Plea  "]  would  give  the  right  hand  of  fellow- 
ship, and  bid  him  God-s]:)eed,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  wherever  he  is 
found.  ...  A  Hberal-minded  and  benevolent  soul,  who  embraces  every 
human  being  in  the  arms  of  liis  charitj- ;  who  rises  superior  to  the 
superstitious  tribe  of  infaUible  doctors,  -  the  genus  irritabile  vatum ; 
who  can  pierce  through  the  guise  of  human  distinctions,  and  ti-ace 
religious  excellence  among  all  orders  and  descriptions  of  men,  —  he 
would  clasp  to  his  bosom,  make  him  room  in  his  heart,  and  give  him 

a  place  in  the  attic  story  of  his  affections He  that  worships 

God  most  spiritually,  and  obeys  him  most  universally,  beheving  in  the 
name  of  his  only-begotten  Son,  is  the  best  man,  and  most  acceptaljlt 
to  the  Divine  Being,  whether  he  be  found  in  a  church,  in  a  Qualvcr's 
meeting-house,  in  a  Dissenting  place  of  worship  of  any  other  descrij> 
tion,  or  upon  the  top  of  a  momitain. ..."  In  every  nation,"  and  among 
all  denominations  of  men,  "  he  that  feareth  God  and  worketh  right- 
eousness is  accepted  with  him."  And,  if  God  will  accept,  why  should 
not  man  ?  —  David  Simpson  :  Plea  for  Religion,  pp.  xxiii.  and  97. 

I  would  educate  young  men  in  sentiments  of  the  Avannest  affection 
and  the  highest  reverence  to  the  estabhshed  reUgion  of  this  free  and 
enlightened  country.  I  would  at  the  same  time  endeavor  to  conxdnce 
them,  that,  in  all  the  various  modes  of  Christian  feith,  a  serious 
observer  may  discover  some  sound  principles  and  many  worthy  men. 
I  would  tell  them,  that  the  wise  and  the  good  cherish  witliin  their 
own  bosom  a  religion  yet  more  piu'e  and  perfect  than  any  formulary 
of  speculation  they  externally  profess ;  that  their  agreement  upon 
points  of  supreme  and  indisputable  moment  is  greater  perhaps  than 
they  may  themselves  suspect ;  and  that  upon  subjects  the  e\idence  of 
which  is  doubtful;  and  the  im]3Drtance  of  which  is  secondarj',  their 
differences  are  nominal  rather  than  real,  and  often  deserve  to  be 
imputed  to  the  excess  of  vanity  or  zeal  in  the  controversialist,  more 
than  to  any  defect  of  sagacity  or  integrity  in  the  inquirer.  —  Dii.  S. 
Parr:  Discourse  on  Education  ;  in  Worlcs,  vol.  ii.  pp.  171-2. 

"\\'^here,  after  all  the  heart-burnings  and  blood-shedtUng  occasioned 
by  reUgious  wars,  —  where  is  the  true  church  of  Christ  but  in  the 
hearts  of  good  men ;  the  hearts  of  merciful  believers,  who  from  prin- 
ciple, in  obedience  to  and .  for  the  love  of  Clirist,  as  well  as  from 
sj-mpathy,  labor  for  peace ;  go  about  doing  good ;  consulting,  without 
local  prejudice,  the  hapjjiness  of  all  men ;  and,  instead  of  confining 
theu"  good  offices  to  a  small  part,  endeavor  to  pour  oil  into  the  wounds 


80  THE  CONSTITUENTS   OF  TUE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH. 

of  suffering  human  nature  ?  In  the  hearts  of  such  men,  united  in  love 
to  God  and  liis  crcatui-es,  is  tlie  chm-ch  of  Chrint,  —  ViCESiMLS  Ivxox : 
Preface  to  Jlntlpoltmns ;  in  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  418. 

If  party  names  must  subsist,  let  us  airefiilly  witch  against  a  ])arty 
spirit;  let  us  direct  our  cliief  attention  to  what  constitutes  a  Christbn, 
and  learn  to  jirize  most  highly  those  great  truths  in  which  all  good 
men  are  agreed.  In  a  settled  persuasion  that  what  is  disputed  or 
obscure  in  the  system  of  Christianity  is,  in  that  proportion,  of  little 
importance,  compared  to  those  fundamental  truths  wliich  are  inscribed 
on  the  page  of  revelation  as  with  a  sunbeam  ;  whenever  we  see  a  Chris- 
tmn,  let  us  esteem,  let  us  love  him ;  and,  though  he  be  weixk  in  faith, 

receive  him,  "  not  to  doubtful  disputation." At  last  the  central 

principle  of  union  [among  the  genuine  disciples  of  Jesus  Christ]  begins 
to  be  extensively  felt  and  acknowledged.  Amid  all  the  diversities  of 
external  discipline  or  subordinate  ojnnion,  the  seed  of  God,  the  ])rinci- 
ple  of  spiritiuil  and  immortal  life  implanted  in  the  soul,  is  recognized 
by  the  sincere  followers  of  the  Lamb  as  the  transcendent  jjoint  of 
mutual  attraction  in  the  midst  of  minor  differences.  Even  Protest^uits 
and  Catholics,  influenced  by  a  kindred  piety,  can  now  cordially  embrace 
each  other ;  as  in  the  case  of  that  zealous  j)rofessor  of  the  llomish 
church  to  whom  I  before  referred  [Leander  Van  Ess],  who  corresjjonds 
in  terms  of  cordial  affection  witli  the  Protestiint  secret;u-y  of  the  Bible 
Society  for  its  foreign  department.  The  essential  sj)irit  of  religion 
begins  to  assert  its  ascendancy  over  all  besides.  The  most  enlightened, 
the  selectest  Christians  in  every  denomination  are  ready  to  cultivate 
an  intercourse  with  kindred  spu-its,  with  all  who  hold  the  same  essen- 
tial principles,  in  any  other.  —  Robert  Hall  :  Sermons ;  in  Works, 
vol.  iii.  1)1).  ISO  and  420-1. 

Keligious  sects  are  not  to  be  judged  from  the  reprcsentixtions  of 
their  enemies,  but  are  to  be  heard  for  themselves,  in  the  pleadings 
of  their  best  writers,  not  in  the  representxtions  of  those  whose  intempe- 
rate zeal  is  a  misfortune  to  the  sect  to  which  they  belong.  .  .  .  Imit;ite 
the  forbearance  of  God,  who  throws  the  mantle  of  his  mercy  over  all, 
and  who  will  probably  save,  on  the  last  d:iy,  the  piously  right  and  the 
piously  wrong,  seeking  Jesus  in  humbleness  of  mind.  —  SYDNEt 
SMi'ni :  Sermon  on  Christian  Chariti/ ;  in  ff'orks,  ]).  310. 

For  the  rest,  I  think  as  that  nvan  of  true  Githolic  spirit  and  apos- 
tolic zeal,  Richard  Haxter,  thought ;  and  my  readers  will  thank  me 
for  conveying  my  reflections  in  his  owti  words,  in  the  following  golden 
passage  from  his  Life : ..."  I  doubt  not  tliat  God  hath  many  saucUiied 


WISE  AND  GOOD  MEN   IN  ALL  DENOMINATIONS.  81 

ones  among  them  [the  Papists],  who  have  received  the  true  doctrine 
of  Christianity  so  practically,  that  their  conti-adictory  errors  prevail  not 
against  them,  to  hinder  then-  love  of  God  and  their  salvation ;  but  that 
their  erroi-s  are  like  a  conquerable  dose  of  poison,  which  a  healtliful 
nature  doth  overcome.  And  I  can  never  believe,  tliat  a  man  may  not 
re  saved  by  that  reUgion  which  doth  but  bring  him  to  a  true  love  of 
God  and  to  a  heiivenly  mind  and  lite,  nor  that  God  will  ever  cast  a 
soul  into  hell  that  truly  loveth  him."  —  S.  T.  Coleridge  :  ^ids  to 
Bejkciion ;  in  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  240.    . 

Amongst  us  there  is  a  host  of  theologians,  each  wielding  his  sepa- 
irate  authority  over  the  creed  and  the  conscience  of  his  countrymen ; 
f>nd  jou  Catholics  have  justly  reproached  us  with  om-  manifold  and 
never-ending  varieties.  But  here  is  a  book  [the  Bible],  the  influence 
of  wliich  is  thi'owing  all  these  differences  into  the  background,  and 
bringing  forward  those  great  and  substantial  points  of  agreement  which 
lead  us  to  recognize  the  man  of  another  creed  to  be  essentially  a 
Christian;  and  we  want  to  widen  this  circle  of  fellowship,  that  we  may 
be  permitted  to  live  in  the  exercise  of  one  faith  and  of  one  charity 
along  with  you.  —  Dr.  Thomas  Chalmers  :  Select  Works,  voL  iv. 
p.  247. 

These  are  matters  particular,  but  all  bearing  upon  the  gi-eat  philo- 
sophical and  Clu'istian  truth,  which  seems  to  me  the  very  truth  of 
truths,  that  Christian  unity  and  the  perfection  of  Christ's  church  ai'e 
independent  of  theological  articles  of  oj^inion ;  consistmg  in  a  moral 
state  and  moral  and  rehgious  affections,  which  have  existed  in  good 
Christians  of  all  ages  and  all  commimions,  along  with  an  infinitely 
varjing  proportion  of  truth  and  error ;  that  thus  Christ's  chiu-ch  has 
stood  on  a  rock,  and  never  failed ;  yet  has  always  been  marred  with 
much  of  intellectual  error,  and  also  of  practical  resulting  from  the 

intellectual I  want  to  get  out  a  series  of  "  Church-of-England 

Tracts,"  which,  after  estabUshing  again  the  supreme  authority  of  Scrip- 
tme  and  reason  against  tradition,  councils,  and  fathers,  and  showing 
that  reason  is  not  rationalism,  should  then  take  two  lines,  —  the  one 
negative,  the  other  positive ;  the  negative  one  showing  that  the  pre- 
tended unity,  which  has  always  been  the  idol  of  Judaizers,  is  worthless, 
unpracticable,  and  the  pursuit  of  it  has  split  Chi'ist's  church  into  a 
thoustind  sects,  and  will  keep  it  so  spUt  for  ever :  the  other  position, 
showing  that  the  true  unity  is  most  precious,  ])racticable,  and  has  in 
feet  been  never  lost ;  tliat,  at  all  times  and  in  all  countries,  there  has 
been  a  succession  of  men,  enjoying  the  blessings  and  showing  forth 


82  THE  CONSTITUENTS   Oh'  THE   C'URISTIAX   CUURCU. 

the  t'niits  of  Christ's  Spirit ;  that  in  their  lives,  and  in  what  is  truly 
their  religion,  —  i.e.  in  their  {jrayers  and  hjTiins,  —  there  has  been  a 
wonderful  unity ;  tlmt  all  sects  liave  had  amongst  them  the  marks  of 
Christ's  catholic  diurcli,  in  the  graces  of  Ills  Spirit,  and  the  conlession 
of  his  name ;  for  which  purpose  it  might  be  useful  to  give,  side  by 
side,  the  martyrdoms,  missionary  labors,  &c.,  of  Catholics  and  /\j-Lxns, 
Romanists  and  Protestants,  Churchmen  and  Dissenters.  Here  is  a 
grand  field,  gi^ing  room  for  leanimg,  for  eloquence,  for  acuteness,  for 
judgment,  and  for  a  true  love  of  Christ,  in  those  who  took  part  in  it; 
and  ciipablc,  I  think,  of  doing  much  good.  —  L)ii.  Thomas  Arnold  : 
Letters  94,  130 ;  in  Life  and  Correspondence,  pp.  239,  27o. 

In  the  most  comprehensive  sense  of  the  term,  the  Christian  chm'ch 
includes  all  genidne  saints  or  believers ;  all,  in  every  knd,  who  receive 
Jesus  Christ  as  their  Prince  and  Saviour,  who  submit  to  him  as  their 
su]jreme  and  inflvlliljle  guide  in  matters  of  religion,  who  rely  for  pardon 
and  salvation  on  his  atoning  sacrifice,  and  who  sincerely  consecrate 
themselves  to  his  service.  All  such  jjersons,  however  widel)'  sepa- 
rated in  respect  of  place,  and  however  diversified  by  external  circum- 
sUuices,  or  even  by  minor  distinctions  in  religion,  are  represented  in 
Scripture  as  "  being  not  of  the  world,  but  cidled  out  of  the  world," 
and  as  component  members  of  the  same  spiritual  and  heavenly  associa- 
tion. —  Dr.  Kobert  Baljier  :  Tlve  Scripture  Principles  of  Unity ; 
in  Essays  on  Christian  Union,  p.  21. 

Tliis  definition  of  the  "  Christiiui  churcli "  is  sufficiently  wide  to  include 
all  believers  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and,  consequently,  all  Unitarians  -who 
recognize  the  special  inspiration  of  the  same  holy  Personage,  if  the  phrase 
"  atoii+ng  sacrifice"  be  understood  to  refer  to  the  death  of  Christ  as  one 
of  the  means  a|)pointed  by  God  to  reconcile  to  himself  his  erring  and  sinful 
children.  We  know  not  what  was  Dr.  Balmkk's  conception  of  the  atone- 
ment; but  it  is  well  known  that  the  opinions  of''  orthodox"  Christiai^s  difler 
much  from  each  other  on  this  point,  some  of  them  approximating  to  the 
views  held  by  Unitarians. 

I  never  Ciin  think  of  a  narrow-minded  Christiim,  —  a  Christian  who, 
instead  of  giving  free  scojje  to  his  ChristLin  affections,  ojjening  and 
expanding  his  heart  to  the  admission  of  the  entire  family  of  God, 
contracts  his  sj)irit,  and  limits  his  comnnmion  of  love  to  tiie  denomi- 
nation witli  which  he  is  connected,  —  or  of  tlie  man  who  actually 
imagines  tliat  family  of  God  to  consist  of  no  more  than  those  who 
assent  to  the  shibboleth  of  his  little  jjarty,  —  1  never  can  think  of  such 
a  man  otherwise  than  as  one  who,  through  the  operation  of  a  widely 


WISE  AND   GOOD  MEN   IN   ALL  DENOMINATIONS.  83 

mistaken  principle,  is  cheating  himself  of  pleasure,  and  of  pleasure  the 
highest,  the  richest,  the  most  exquisite  in  its  character.  ...  I  would 
not  for  the  world  be  the  man  who  thus  locks  up  his  heart  in  an  ice- 
house ;  who  puts  the  short  chain  and  the  galling  collar  of  bigotry  on 
the  neck  of  his  Christian  charity ;  who  can  look  round,  with  a  narrow 
sectarian  satislaction,  on  the  members  of  his  own  little  sect,  and  with 
cold  indifference,  or  something  worse,  towards  all  beyond  the  pale,  — 
can  count,  one  by  one,  the  number  of  those  whom  alone  he  o\^-ns  as 
his  brethren,  and  expects  to  meet  in  heaven ;  who  estimates  the 
Christianity  of  his  party,  and  the  e^■idence  of  its  being  the  true  flock 
of  Christ,  by  its  diminutiveness ;  finding  in  this  liis  solace  for  what 
others  can  trace  to  far  different  causes,  —  to  the  wildness  of  its  dogmas, 
and  the  uncharitable  censoriousness  of  its  members.  —  Dr.  Ralph 
Wardlaw,  in  Essays  on  Christian  Union,  pp.  291-3. 

The  true  church,  the  in\isible  community,  is  really  and  indi^isibly 
one.  Amidst  all  this  di\ision  and  disruption,  beneath  these  angry  and 
contentious  elements,  there  is  an  essential  unity,  which,  though  Hmited 
to  no  age,  confuied  to  no  country,  restrained  to  no  partj',  and  seen  in 
its  ent'reness  by  no  eye  but  that  which  is  omniscient,  really  and  always 
exists ;  a  unity  which  nothing  can  impair,  and  which,  while  it  is  ever 
gathering  up  into  itself  the  redeemed  of  the  Lord,  of  every  age,  coun- 
try, and  communion,  equally  rejects  the  unregenerate  of  all  of  them. . . . 
Divide  as  they  may  into  separate,  visible  communions,  they  [believers] 
cannot  break  away  from  the  fellowship  of  the  one  in^isible  commtmion 
of  saints.  Into  Avhatever  number  of  distinct  churches  they  may  arrange 
themselves,  they  are  fellow-members  of  the  holy  cathohc  church;  and 
in  their  holier  and  happier  moments  they  feel  it,  and  rejoice  in  it, 
when,  'rom  the  exercise  of  that  faith  which  unites  them  to  Christ, 
there  arises  a  love  too  fervent  and  expansive  to  be  confined  within  the 
nan-ow  limits  of  their  own  party,  and  which,  bursting  thi-ough  all 
sectarian  barriers,  flows  in  one  mighty  stream  of  holy  sympathy  to 
all  who  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity.  —  John  Angfxl 
James  :  Union  in  relation  to  the  Religious  Parties  of  England ;  in 
Essays  on  Christian  Union,  pp.  148-50. 

The  true  church  is  built  on  the  foundation  of  the  purest  as  well  as 
most  sacred  Hberty,  and  Ls  cemented  with  unconstrained  confidence 
and  mutual  love,  the  strongest  of  all  bonds.  It  is  a  voluntixiy  assem- 
blage of  equals,  wherein  every  one  obeys,  and  no  one  commands 

The  voluntiiry  association  of  a  truly  Christian  brotherhood,  where  each 
one  enters  and  retires  freely,  seeking  individual  enjoyment  only  in  the 


St  THE   CONSTITUENTS   OF  THE   CUKI&TIAN   CHUUCH. 

general  welfare,  according  to  the  simple  conditions  determined  by  one 
Lord,  one  faith,  and  one  baptism,  is  the  most  efficacious  alle\Tation,  if 
not  cure,  of  the  three  grand  evils  of  tliis  world ;  penury,  bondage,  and 
corruption.  —  E.  L.  Magoon  :  Rtpub.  Christianiti/,  pp.  165-6,  313. 

We  want,  as  the  grciit  Ilobinson  believed,  "  more  light  to  break. 
forth  from  God's  holy  word,"  —  not  from  the  fomiukis  or  the  Cate- 
chisms or  the  schools  or  the  doctors,  but  from  God's  holy  word,  and 
especially  from  those  parts  of  the  word  which  represent  the  Cliristian 
truth  as  spirit  and  life,  attainable  only  as  our  heart  and  spirit  are  con- 
Sgiu-ed  to  it,  and  able  to  off?r  it  tluit  sympathy  which  is  the  first 
condition  of  understanding,  —  attixinal)le  only  by  such  as  are  in  the 
Spirit  themselves.  Tliis  .  .  .  will  bring  us  .  .  .  an  era  of  renovated 
£uth,  sjjreading  I'rom  circle  to  circle  through  the  whole  church  of  God 
on  earth  ;  the  remoral  of  divisions,  the  smoothing  a\vay  of  asperities, 
the  realization  of  love  as  a  bond  of  perfectness  in  all  the  saints.  It 
will  biing  in  such  an  em  as  many  signs  begin  to  foretoken ;  for  it  comes 
to  me  publicly,  as  relating  to  bodies  of  Christian  ministers,  and  circles 
of  believers  in  distmt  places,  that  they  are  longing  for  some  fuller 
manifestation  of  grace,  and  del)ating  the  possibility  of  another  and 
hoher  order  of  Christian  life.  It  comes  to  me  also  privatelj,  every  few 
days,  that  ministers  of  God  and  Christian  brethren,  cixUed  to  be  saints, 
ha\ing  no  concert  but  in  God,  are  hungering  and  thirsting  after  right- 
eousness m  a  degree  that  is  new  to  themselves,  daring  to  hope  and 
believe  that  they  may  be  filled ;  testifying  joyfully  that  Christ  is  a  more 
com])lete  Sa^•iour,  and  the  manifestation  of  God  in  the  heart  of  tliith 
a  more  intense  reahty,  than  they  had  before  conceived.  Meantime, 
as  we  all  know,  a  feeUng  of  fraternity  is  growing  up  silently  in  distant 
parts  of  the  Christian  world.  Bigotry  is  tottering,  rigidity  growing 
flexible,  and  Christian  hearts  are  yearning  everjwhere  after  a  day 
of  universal  brotherhood  in  Christ  Jesus.  .  .  .  Indeed,  it  is  e\en  a 
great  maxim  of  pliilosopliy,  that,  when  we  see  men  wide  asunder 
beginning  to  take  up  the  same  thoughts  and  fall  into  the  same  senti- 
ments, and  that  without  concert  or  communiaition,  we  are  generally 
to  believe  that  something  decisive  in  that  direction  is  preparing ;  for 
it  is  the  age  that  is  working  in  them,  or  the  God  rather,  probably,  of 
all  ages ;  and,  accordingly,  what  engages  so  many  at  once  is  only  the 
quickening  in  them  of  that  seed  on  whose  stalk  the  future  is  to  blos- 
Bom.  Should  we  not,  therefore,  expect  a  gradual  apjjcaring  of  new 
life,  which  years  only  can  prejjare  ?  Shall  we  not  even  chre  to  sjjread 
our  Clu-istian  confidences  by  the  measures  of  Providence,  and  in  tins 


■WISE  AND   GOOD   MEN   IN  ALL  DENOMINATIONS.  85 

mi-iner  take  up  the  hope,  that,  when  so  many  signs  and  yearnings 
meet  in  their  fulfihnent,  we  may  see  a  grand  revinng  of  religion,  that 
shall  be  marked  by  no  vilkge-boundaries,  no  walls  of  sect  or  name, 
but  shall  penetrate,  wify,  and  melt  into  brotherhood,  at  last,  all  who 
love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  on  earth  ?  —  Horace  Busunell  :  God  in 
Christ,  pp.  297-9. 

The  liberal  sentiments  expressed  in  this  section  are  not  concessions  in 
favor  of  Unitariaiiisra  considered  by  itself,  or  as  one  of  the  numerous 
branches  of  the  religion  of  Jesus.  Indeed,  some  of  their  authors  would 
refuse  the  name  of  "  Christian  "  to  the  worshipper  of  the  Father  only,  whom 
Jesus  addressed  in  prayer.  But  they  are  testimonies  to  the  value  and 
excellence  of  those  great  principles  of  charity  and  fraternal  love,  which, 
though  constituting  an  essential  and  a  prominent  feature  of  Unitarianism, 
are  more  or, less  involved  in  every  form  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  are 
deeply  cherished  by  the  truly  catholic  minds  of  every  church,  however 
they  may  be  obscured,  or  impeded  in  their  operation,  by  such  dogiuas  of 
human  conceit  as  belie  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  According  to  these  senti- 
ments, Cln-istianity  was  intended  by  its  Founder,  not  for  a  few,  but  for  all. 
His  church  embraces  all,  of  whatever  creed  or  denomination,  who  consecrate 
themselves  to  the  service  of  God.  Christ,  and  humanity.  Individuals  may 
err  as  to  matters  which  are  indifferent  in  themselves,  or  are  obscurely  set 
forth  in  Scripture;  but,  if  they  love  goodness  and  reverence  truth,  —  if  they 
are  faithful  to  the  light  which  has  been  imparted  to  them,  —  they  may  all 
bend  with  lowly  minds  and  contrite  hearts  in  the  mighty  temple  which  the 
Saviour  has  erected  to  the  praise  of  the  universal  Father.  Jlen  and  women 
are  disciples  of  Christ,  not  because  they  are  Calvinists  or  Arminians,  Presby- 
terians or  Congregationalists,  Papists  or  Protestants,  but  because,  believing 
in  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  they  have  the  spirit  of 
his  Son.  They  are  members  of  Christ's  church,  not  because  they  are 
orthodox,  can  utter  the  shibboleths  of  the  parties  to  which  they  are  attached, 
or  talk  profoundly  of  the  divine  essence  and  decrees,  but  because  in  their 
words  and  their  actions,  in  their  lives  and  their  deaths,  they  adopt  and 
practise  those  common  principles  of  the  gospel,  —  love  to  God,  and  love  to 
man,  —  which  bigotry  may  mar,  but  cannot  destroy;  which  superstition 
may  blot,  but  never  expunge;  which  error  and  sophisms  may  for  a  while 
hide  from    he  view,  but  are  unable  wholly  to  conceal. 

"  Religion  pure. 
Unchanged  in  spirit,  though  its  forms  and  codes 

Wear  myriad  modes, 
Contains  all  creeds  wit'.iin  its  niii^litv  span,  — 
The  love  of  God,  displaye.l  in  love  of  man." 

The  sentiments,  indeed,  which  we  have  quoted  in  the  preceding  pages  bear 
no  proportion  to  the  narrow-minded  opinions  laid  down  in  many  theological 
writings;  but  it  would  be  an  easy  and  a  delightful  task  to  make  additional 
extracts  of  a  similar  character  and  tendency. 

8 


86  UNITARIANS  DISIINGUISHED  FOR 


SECT.  VIII.  —  UNITARIANS  DISTINGUISHED  FOR  TIIEIR  WORTH,  PIETY, 
INTELLIGENCE,  AND  LEARNING. 

He  who  is  truly  a  good  man  is  more  than  half-way  to  being  a  Christian,  by 
whatever  name  he  is  called.  —  South. 

§  1.  Individual  Unitarians. 

The  person  of  Arius  was  tall  and  graceful ;  his  countenance  calm, 
pale,  and  subdued ;  his  manners  engaging ;  his  conversation  fluent 
and  persuasive.  He  was  well  acquainted  with  humim  sciences ;  as  a 
disputant  subtle,  ingenious,  and  feitile  in  resoui-ces,  —  H.  H.  Miliian  : 
Historij  of  Christianity,  book  iii.  cliap.  4. 

Arius  ...  is  said  to  have  been  ...  of  a  severe  and  gloomy  appear- 
ance, though  of  captivating  and  modest  manners.  The  excellence 
of  his  moml  character  seems  to  be  sufficiently  attested  by  the  silence  of 
his  enemies  to  the  contrary.  That  he  was  of  a  covetous  and  scnsu;il 
disposition  is  an  opinion  unsupjjorted  by  any  historical  evidence.  — 
Dr.  Leoxiiard  Sctijiitz,  in  Smith's  Didionarij  of  Greek  and  Roman 
Bio<rraph}/  and  Mijtholos^y,  art.  "  Arius." 

[Andi-ew]  Dudith,  who  was  certainly  one  of  the  most  learned  and 
eminent  men  of  the  sixteenth  century,  was  bom  at  Buda,  in  the  year 
1533. . . .  He  had,  by  the  force  of  his  genius  and  the  study  of  the  ancient 
orators,  acquired  such  a  masterly  and  irresistible  eloquence,  that  in  all 
public  deliberations  he  carried  every  thing  before  him. . .  .  He  was  well 
acquainted  with  several  branches  of  philosophy  and  the  mathematics ; 
■with  the  sciences  of  physic,  history,  theology,  and  the  ci\il  law.  .  .  . 
His  life  was  regular  and  \-ii-tuous,  his  manners  elegant  and  easy,  and 
his  benevolence  warm  and  extensive.  —  Archihald  Macl.'JNE,  us 
quoted  bi/  Dr.  Murdoch,  in  his  translatio7i  of  jMosheim's  Ecclesiastical 
Histonj,  book  iv.  cent.  xvi.  sect.  3,  ])art  2,  chap.  4,  §  9,  note  20. 

Duilith.  ail  eiilij^htened  advocate  for  liberty  of  conscience,  as  well  as  an 
eminent  scholar,  was,  in  all  probability,  a  Unitarian;  but,  as  Maclaine  and 
others  speak  doubtfnlly  of  this  matter,  tiie  reader  may,  if  he  chooses,  regard 
him  only  as  a  great  and  good  man,  belonging,  without  any  peculiar  desig- 
nation, to  the  universal  church  of  Christ. 

La'lius  Socinus  was  the  son  of  Marianus,  a  celebrated  lawyer ;  and 
to  gi-eat  learning  and  fcilents  he  added,  as  even  his  enemies  acknow- 
ledge, a  pure  and  blameless  life The  af&irs  of  the  Unitarians 


THEIK  MORAL  AND  INTELLECTUAL   WOIITU.  87 

[in  Poland]  assumed  a  new  aspect  under  the  dexterity  and  industrj-  of 
Faustus  Socinus ;  a  man  of  superior  genius,  of  moderate  learning,  of  a 
finn  and  resolute  spirit,  less  erudite  than  his  uncle  Lslius,  but  mor" 
bold  and  courageous.  .  .  .  By  his  wealth,  his  eloquence,  his  abiHties  as 
a  writer,  the  patronage  of  the  great,  the  elegance  of  his  manners,,and 
other  advantages  which  he  possessed,  he  overcame  at  length  all  diffi- 
culties; and,  by  seasonably  yielding  at  one  time,  and  contesting  at 
another,  he  brought  the  whole  Unitiuian  people  to  surrender  to  those 
opinions  of  his  which  they  had  before  contemned,  and  to  coalesce  and 
become  one  communitj^  —  J.  L.  Mosheim  :  Ecclesiastical  History, 
book  iv.  cent.  xvi.  sect  3,  part  2,  chap.  4,  §§  1  and  1 1 ;  Dr.  ]\Iurdock's 
transLition. 

Such  and  so  considerable  a  man  was  [Faustus  Socinus]  the  author 
and  patron  of  this  sect.  All  those  qualities  that  excite  the  admmxtion 
and  attract  the  regards  of  men,  met  in  him ;  that,  as  it  wre  with  a 
charm,  he  bewitched  all  who  conversed  with  him,  and  left  on  their 
minds  strong  impressions  of  wonder  and  affection  towards  him.  He 
so  excelled  in  fine  parts  and  a  lofty  genius ;  such  were  the  strength 
of  his  reasonings  and  the  power  of  his  eloquence ;  he  displayed,  m  the 
sight  of  all,  so  many  distinguished  virtues,  which  he  either  professed, 
or  counterfeited  in  an  extraordinary  degree,  —  that  he  appeared  formed 
to  engage  the  attachment  of  all  mankind ;  and  it  is  not  the  least  sur- 
prising that  he  deceived  great  numbers,  and  di-ew  them  over  to  his 
party.  So  that  what  Augustin  said  of  Faustus  Manicha?us  may  not 
improperly  be  applied  to  Faustus  Socinus ;  that  he  was  "  magnum 
Diaboli  laqueum,"  the  Devil's  deco}'.  —  George  Ashwell  :  De  Socino 
et  Sociriianismo,  p.  18 ;  as  quoted  by  Toulmin,  in  his  Memoirs  of 
Socinus,  pp.  15,  16. 

Amid  the  ill  temper  displaj-ed  in  this  passage,  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
writer  was  forced  to  pay  a  high  compliment  to  the  virtues  and  genius  of  a 
man  whose  name  has  been  so  often  held  as  synonymous  with  all  that  is  vile 
and  blasphemous  in  theological  opinions.  But,  though  Unitarians,  whether 
believers  or  disbelievers  in  the  pre-existence  of  Christ,  have  reason  to 
venerate  Socinus  for  what  he  did  and  suffered  on  behalf  of  their  leading 
doctrine,  —  the  simple  oneness  and  paternal  ciiaracter  of  God,  —  they  can- 
not regard  him  as  the  author  or  founder  of  their  views,  or  as  their  leader  in 
matters  of  religion;  nor  can  they  consent  to  be  called  by  his  honorable 
name.  Thankful  for  all  the  helps  which  God  has  vouchsafed  to  them  by 
the  labors  of  the  good  and  wise  either  of  their  own  denomination  or  of 
others,  they  dare  not  bend  in  lowly  reverence  before  any  Lord  and  Master 
but  the  Man  of  Nazareth,  the  Holy  One  of  God. 


88  UNITARIANS  DISTINGUISHED   FOR 

In  this  unlnppy  battle  [the  battle  of  Newbury,  1G43]  was  slain  thf 
lord  nscount  Fallvland;  a  person  of  such  prodigious  parts  of  learning 
and  knowledge,  of  tint  inimitable  sweetness  and  delight  in  conversa- 
tion, of  so  flowing  and  obliging  a  humanity  and  goodness  to  mankind, 
and  of  that  ])rimitive  simplicity  and  integrity  of  life,  that,  if  there  were 
no  other  brand  uj)on  this  odious  and  accursed  civil  war  tlian  that  single 
loss,  it  must  be  most  infamous  and  execrable  to  all  posterity.  .  .  .  He 
was  a  great  cherisher  of  wit  and  fancy  and  good  parts  in  any  man, 
and,  if  he  found  them  clouded  with  poverty  or  want,  a  most  liberal  and 
bountiful  patron  towards  them,  even  above  his  fortune ;  of  which,  in 
those  administrations,  he  was  such  a  dispenser  as  if  he  had  been  trusted 
with  it  to  such  uses,  and  if  there  had  been  the  leiist  of  Aice  in  liis  ex- 
pense, he  might  have  been  thought  too  prodigal.  .  .  .  His  house  being 
within  ten  miles  of  Oxford,  he  contracted  familiarity  and  friendship 
■with  the  most  polite  and  accurate  men  of  that  university ;  who  found 
such  an  immenseness  of  \nt  and  such  a  solidity  of  judgment  in  him, 
so  infinite  a  fancy,  bound  in  by  a  most  logical  ratiocination,  such  a  vast 
knowledge,  that  he  was  not  ignorant  in  any  thing,  yet  such  an  exces- 
sive humility  as  if  he  had  known  nothing,  that  they  frequently  resorted, 
and  dwelt  with  him,  as  in  a  college  sitiuvted  in  a  pui-er  air.  .  .  .  He  was 
so  great  an  enemy  to  that  passion  and  uncharitableness  wliich  he  saw 
produced  by  difference  of  opinion  in  matters  of  religion,  that,  in  all 
disputations  with  priests  and  others  of  the  Roman  church,  he  affected 
to  manifest  all  possible  civility  to  their  persons,  and  estimation  of  their 
parts.  .  .  .  Thus  fell  that  incomparable  young  man,  in  the  four  and 
thirtieth  year  of  his  age,  having  so  much  despatched  the  business  of 
life,  tliat  the  oldest  rarely  attiin  to  that  immense  knowledge,  and  the 
you  igest  enter  not  into  the  world  with  more  innocence ;  and  whosoever 
leads  such  a  life  needs  not  care  ujion  how  short  warning  it  be  tiken 
from  him.  —  Lord  Clarendon  :  History  of  tlie  Rebellion,  vol  iii. 
pp.  185-8,  198;  Oxford,  1849. 

The  evidence  for  Lord  Falkland's  Unitarianism  will  be  found  in  Wal 
lace's  Antitrinitarian  Hio<rr!i|)tiy,  vol.  iii.  pp.  15'2-6.  According  to  John 
Aubrey,  as  quoted  in  that  work,  Lord  Falkland  "  was  the  first  Socinian  in 
England." 

We  cite  no  apprcciatory  notices  of  "  the  ever-meinorablc  John  Hales  of 
Eton  "and  "the  inunortal  Chillingworth,"  because  the  evidence  for  their 
Ijnitnrinnisni  is  less  satisfactory.  Whatever  may  have  been  their  views 
respecting  God,  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  their  Christian  principles  were 
too  broad  to  permit  a  bigoted  adherence  to  any  religious  party, —  too  catho 
lie  to  be  moulded  into  any  sectarian  shape. 


TIIKIR   MORAL  AND   INTELLECTUAL   WOIITII  89 

Sir  Isaac  Newtou  [was]  the  most  splendid  genius  tliat  has  jel 
adorned  human  nature,  and  [is]  by  universal  consent  placed  at  the  head 
of  mathematics  and  of  science.  .  .  .  He  was  exceedingly  courteous  and 
affable,  even  to  the  lowest,  and  never  despised  any  man  for  want  of  capa- 
city ;  but  always  expressed  freely  his  resentment  against  immorality  or 
impiety.  He  not  only  showed  a  great  and  constant  regard  to  religion 
in  general,  as  well  by  aii  exemplary  life  as  in  all  Iris  writings,  but  was 
also  a  firm  believer  in  revealed  religion,  with  one  exception,  —  an 
important  one,  indeed,  —  tliat  his  sentiments  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  by  no  means  coincided  with  what  are  generally  held.  .  .  .  An 
innate  modesty  and  simphcity  showed  itself  in  all  his  actions  and 
expressions.  His  whole  life  was  one  continued  series  of  labor,  patience, 
charity,  genei-osity,  tempei-ance,  piety,  goodness,  and  every  other  vir- 
tue, without  a  mixture  of  any  known  vice  whatsoever.  —  Alexander 
Chalmers  :  Biographical  Dictionary,  art.  "  Newton,  Sir  Isaac." 

When  we  look  back  on  the  days  of  Newton,  we  annex  a  kind 
of  mysterious  greatness  to  him,  who,  by  the  pure  force  of  his  under- 
standing, rose  to  such  a  gigantic  elevation  above  the  level  of  ordinary 
men ;  and  the  kings  and  warriors  of  other  days  sink  into  msignificance 
around  him ;  and  he,  at  this  moment,  stands  forth  to  the  public  eye 
in  a  prouder  array  of  glory  than  circles  the  memory  of  all  the  men 
of  former  generations ;  and,  while  all  the  \adgar  grandeiu*  of  other 
days  is  now  mouldering  in  forgetfuhiess,  the  achievements  of  our  great 
astronomer  are  still  fresh  in  the  veneration  of  liis  countrymen,  and 
they  carry  him  forward  on  the  stream  of  time  with  a  reputation  ever 
gathering,  and  the  triumphs  of  a  distinction  that  will  never  die.  .  .  . 
I  cannot  forbear  to  do  honor  to  the  unpretending  greatness  of  Ne\vton, 
than  whom  I  know  not  Lf  ever  there  lighted  on  the  tiice  of  our  world, 
one  in  the  character  of  whose  admirable  genius  so  much  force  and 
so  much  humility  were  more  attractively  blended.  —  Dr.  Thomas 
Chalmers  :  Aatronomical  Discourses,  Discom-se  2 ;  in  Select  Works, 
vol.  iv.  pp.  370,  372. 

If  Christianity  be  not  in  their  estimation  true  [Lf,  in  the  estimation 
of  absolute  u.ibelievers,  Christianity  be  not  true],  yet  is  there  not  at 
least  a  presumption  in  its  flivor,  sufficient  to  entitle  it  to  a  serious 
examination,  from  its  having  been  embraced,  and  that  not  Mindly  and 
implicitly,  but  upon  full  inquiry  and  deep  consideration,  by  Bacon 
and  Milton  and  Locke  and  Newton,  and  much  the  greater  pai  t  of  those 
who,  by  the  reach  of  their  mulerstandings  or  the  extent  of  tl  eir  know- 
ledge, and  by  the  fieedom  too  of  their  minds,  and  their  dai'mg  to 

8* 


90  UNITARIANS  DISTINQUISHED  FOR 

combat  existing  prejudices,  have  called  forth  the  respect  and  admira- 
tion of  mankind  ?  .  .  .  .  Through  the  boimty  of  Pro\idence,  the  more 
widely  spreading  poison  of  infidelity  has  in  our  days  been  met  with 
more  numerous  and  more  powerful  antidotes.  One  of  these  has  been 
ah-eady  pointed  out ;  and  it  should  be  matter  of  farther  gratitude  to 
every  real  Clu-istian,  that,  in  the  very  place  on  whicli  modern  infidelity 
had  dispLiyed  the  standard  of  victory,  a  waiTior  in  the  service  of  reli- 
gion, a  man  of  the  most  acute  discernment  and  profound  research,  has 
been  raised  up  by  Pro\idence  to  quell  their  triumph.  It  is  almost 
su])erfluous  to  state,  that  Sir  William  Jones  is  here  meant,  who,  from 
the  testimony  borne  to  his  extraordinary  talents  by  Sir  John  Shore, 
in  his  first  address  to  the  Asiatic  Society  of  Calcutta,  apjjcars  to  have 
been  a  man  of  most  extraordinary  genius  and  astonishing  erudition.  — 
William  AVilberforce  :  Practichl  View,  chap.  ■vii.  sect.  3. 

With  the  exception  of  Lord  Bacon,  the  men  here  named,  whose  moral 
and  intellectual  qualities  rank  them  so  high  in  the  scale  of  humanity,  and 
whose  attachment  to  or  defence  of  the  Christian  faith  is  regarded  as  pre- 
sumptive evidence  in  its  behalf,  cherished,  as  is  now  well  known,  Unitari;xn 
opinions.  To  all  who  share  in  Wilberforce's  admiration  at  seeing  those  men 
of  master-minds  sitting  reverentially  at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  who  agree  with 
him  in  the  inference  which  he  has  drawn,  the  following  remark  by  the  same 
writer,  in  immediate  connection,  will  scarcely  be  regarded  in  any  other  light 
than  as  inconsistent  and  illogical,  if  not  unjust:  "In  the  course  which  we 
lately  traced  from  nominal  orthodoxy  to  absolute  infidelity,  Unitarianism 
is,  indeed,  a  sort  of  half-way  house, ...  a  stage  on  the  journey,  where  some- 
times a  person  indeed  finally  stops,  but  where  not  unfrequently  he  only 
pauses  for  a  while,  and  then  pursues  his  progress."  So  far  from  being  true 
that  the  adoption  of  Unitarian  principles  generally  leads  to  infidelity,  as  is 
implied  in  the  charge  adduced,  that,  with  all  its  faults  and  shortcomings, 
probably  no  denomination  in  Christendom  has  been  more  faithful  to  its  pro- 
fessions, or,  if  the  number  of  its  adherents  be  taken  into  account,  has  done 
60  much  in  presenting  the  evidences  of  Christianity  in  a  clear  and  cogent 
point  of  view,  than  that  of  Unitarians.  Can  Orthodoxy,  with  all  its  array 
of  truly  distinguished  writers,  place  the  names  of  any  defenders  of  our 
common  faith  above  those  of  Nathaniel  Lardner,  Joseph  Priestley,  William 
Ellcry  Channing,  and  Andrews  Norton?  We  moan  not  in  respect  to  their 
talents  or  their  genius,  —  though  they  were  unquestionably  men  of  powerful 
intellect,  —  but  merely  as  to  the  amount  or  the  worth  of  their  services  as 
"apologists"  for  Christianity. 

Tliis  year  [1698],  Thomas  Firmin,  a  famous  citizen  of  London, 
died.  lie  was  in  great  esteem  for  promoting  many  charitiible  designs; 
for  looking  after  the  ])oor  of  the  city,  and  setting  them  to  work ;  for 
raising  great  smus  for  schools  and  hospitals,  and,  indeed,  for  charitiea 


THEIR  MORAL  AND   INTELLECTUAL  WORTH.  91 

of  all  sorts,  j)rivate  and  public.  He  had  such  credit  Mith  the  richest 
citizens,  that  he  had  the  command  of  great  wealth,  as  oft  as  there  was 
occasion  for  it ;  and  he  laid  out  his  own  time  chiefly  in  advancing  all 
such  designs.  These  things  gained  him  a  gi'eat  reputation.  He  was 
called  a  Socinian,  but  was  really  an  Arian.  .  .  .  Ai-chljishop  Tillotson, 
and  some  of  the  bishops,  had  Hved  in  great  friendship  with  Mr.  Firmin, 
whose  charitable  temper  they  thought  it  became  them  to  encourage.  — 
Blshop  Burnet  :  History  of  Ms  Own  Time,  vol.  iii.  p.  292 ;  Lond. 
1809. 

I  was  exceedingly  struck  at  reading  the  following  Life ;  haAing  long 
settled  it  in  my  mind,  that  the  entertaining  WTong  notions  concerning 
the  Trinity  was  inconsistent  with  real  piety.  But  I  cannot  argue 
against  matter  of  fact.  I  dare  not  deny  that  Mr.  Firmin  was  a  pious 
man,  although  his  notions  of  the  Truiity  were  quite  erroneous.  — 
JoiLX  ^^^ESLEY :  Preface  to  an  Extract  from  the  Life  of  Thomas 
Firmin ;  in  Works,  vol.  vii.  p.  574. 

[William  Whiston]  has  all  his  life  been  cultivating  piety  and  wtue 
and  good  learning ;  .rigidly  constant  himself  in  the  pubUc  and  private 
duties  of  religion,  and  always  promoting  in  others  virtue  and  such 
learning  as  he  thought  would  conduce  most  to  the  honor  of  God,  by 
manifesting  the  greatness  and  wisdom  of  his  works.  He  has  given 
the  world  sufficient  proofs  that  he  lias  not  misspent  his  time,  by  very 
useful  works  of  philosophy  and  mathematics :  he  has  apphed  one  to 
the  expUcation  of  the  other,  and  endeavored  by  both  to  display  the 
glory  of  the  great  Creator.  —  BisHOP  Hare  :  Study  of  the  Scriptures ; 
in  Sparks' s  Collection  of  Essays  and  Tracts,  vol.  ii.  p.  163. 

Newton  and  Locke  Avere  esteemed  Socinians ;  Lardner  was  an 
avowed  one ;  Clarke  and  Whiston  were  declared  Arians ;  Bull  and 
"VYaterland  were  professed  Athanasians.  Who  will  take  upon  him  to 
say,  that  these  men  were  not  equal  to  each  other  in  probity  and  Scrip- 
tuml  knowledge  ?  And,  if  that  be  admitted,  surely  we  ought  to  leam 
no  other  lesson  from  the  diversity  of  their  opinions,  except  that  of 
perfect  moderation  and  good-will  towards  all  those  who  happen  to 
differ  from  ourselves.  —  BiSHOP  Watson  :  Jippendix  to  Theological 
Tracts,  vol.  \i. 

I  do  actually  feel  a  constant  and  deep  sense  of  your  goodness  to 
me ;  and,  which  is  much  more,  of  your  contmual  readiness  to  sei-ve  the 
public  with  those  distinguished  abiUties  which  God  has  been  pleased  to 
give  you,  and  Avliich  have  rendered  )our  writings  so  great  a  blessing 
to  the  Cluistian  world.  .  .  .  Li  the  interpretation  of  particular  texts, 


92  UNITARIANS   DISTINGUISUED  FOR 

and  the  manner  of  stating  particuLir  doctrines,  good  men  and  good 
friends  may  have  diflerent  apjirehensions  :  but  you  always  propose  )  our 
sentiments  with  such  good  humor,  modesty,  candor,  and  frankness,  as 
is  very  amiable  and  exemplary ;  and  the  grand  desire  of  spreaduig 
righteousness,  benevolence,  prudence,  the  fear  of  God,  and  a  heavenly 
temper  and  conversation,  so  plaiidy  appears,  particularly  in  this  volume 
of  sermons,  that,  were  I  a  much  stricter  Calvinist  tlian  I  am,  I  should 
honor  and  love  the  author,  though  I  did  not  personally  know  him.  — 
Dit.  Philip  Doddridge  :  Letter  to  Dr.  JVathaniel  Lardner ;  apiul 
Kippis's  Life  of  Lardner,  Appendix  No.  8. 

Numberless  tributes  of  respect  have  been  paid  by  all  sects  Of  Christians 
to  this  indefatigable  writer  and  good  man. 

I  must  contend,  that  the  "  Essay  on  Man,,  his  Frame,  his  Duty,  and 
his  Expectations  "  [by  David  Hartley],  stimds  forward  as  a  specimen 
almost  unique  of  elaborate  theorizing,  and  a  monument  of  absolute 
beauty,  in  the  jjerfection  of  its  dialectic  ability.  In  tliis  resj)ect,  it  has, 
to  my  mind,  the  spotless  beauty  and  the  ideal  proportions  of  some 
Grecian  statue.  —  Thomas  De  Quincey  :  Literary  Reminiscences, 
vol.  i.  pp.  169,  170. 

This  may  well  be  regarded  as  high  praise,  coming,  as  it  does,  from  a 
writer  so  able,  but  yet  so  prejudiced,  as  De  Quincey;  who  introduces  it  by 
saying  that  "  Coleridge  was  profoundly  ashamed  of  the  shdhne  Uiiitarianism 
of  Hartley,"  and  who  takes  frequent  opportunity,  in  his  writings,  of  speak- 
ing contemptuously  of"  Socinians  "  and  "  Socinianism,"  as  well  as  of  those 
divines  in  the  church  of  Knglaiid  whom  he  accuses  of  favoring  Unitarian 
sentiments. 

Were  I  to  jjublish  an  account  of  silenced  and  ejected  ministers,  I 
should  be  strongly  tempted  to  insert  Mr.  Lindscy  in  the  list  wliich  he 
mentions  in  liis  "  Apology  "  witli  so  much  venei~ation.  He  cert;unly 
deserves  as  much  respect  and  honor  as  any  one  of  them  for  the  part 
he  has  acted.  Perhaps  few  of  them  exceeded  him  in  learning  and 
piety.  I  venerate  him  as  I  would  any  of  your  confessors.  As  to  his 
particular  sentiments,  they  are  nothing  to  me.  An  honest,  jjious  miui, 
who  makes  such  a  sacrifice  to  truth  and  conscience  as  he  has  done,  is 
a  glorious  character,  and  deserves  the  respect,  esteem,  and  veneration 
of  every  true  Christian.  —  Job  Orton  :  Letters,  vol.  ii.  p.  159;  as 
quoted  by  Belsham,  in  his  Memoirs  of  Theophilus  Lindsey,  p.  4 1. 

Tt  is  said  by  some  writers,  that  Outon,  who  was  the  assistant  and  friend 
of  Dr.  Doddridge,  became,  in  liis  latter  years,  an  Arian.    In  the  above-cited 


TnEIR  MORAL  AND  INTELLECTUAL  T70RTH  93 

paratji-ajih,  he  refers  to  the  circumstance  of  Lindsey's  resignation  of  the 
vicarage  of  Catterick  in  Yorkshire,  the  advantages  of  whicli  he  renounced, 
on  account  of  his  having  embraced  the  principles  of  Unitarianism,  though 
he  hud  no  prospect  of  finding  means  of  subsistence. 

Reverend  and  dear  Sir,  —  Although  I  am  far  separated  from  you, 
and  possess  but  few  opportimities  of  intercoiu'se  Avith  you,  yet  my 
heart  ever  contemplates  you  with  affection  and  gratitude.  Nor,  in- 
deed, can  it  be  otherwise ;  for,  while  I  feel  myself  surrounded  with 
comforts,  I  cannot,  I  trust,  ever  forget  the  man  to  whose  kindness  so 
many  of  them  are  owing.  .  .  .  Whatever  differences  of  opinion  may 
exist  between  us  on  religious  sulijects,  I  hope  and  trust  that  I  shall  be 
enabled  to  imitate  that  sincerity  of  soul,  of  which  you  have  given  me 
and  the  world  so  bright  an  example.  My  heart,  I  can  truly  say,  is  alive 
to  the  duties  and  the  importance  of  Clii-istianity,  and  I  trust  that  I  am 
not  altogether  a  stranger  to  its  pleasures.  —  Wm.  Winterbotham  : 
Extract  from  a  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Theophilus  Lindsey. 

Mr.  Winterbotham  was  minister  of  a  Calvinistic  congregation  at 
Plymouth  Dock,  who,  under  the  Pitt  administration,  sutTered  four  years' 
imprisonment  on  a  false  charge  of  having  uttered  seditious  language.  In 
this  letter,  written  several  years  afterwards,  he  alludes  to  the  sympathy  and 
kindness  which  Lindsey  had  manifested  towards  him  during  his  confine- 
ment.    See  Belsham's  Memoirs  of  Lindsey,  pp.  358-61. 

Though  of  a  sentiment  in  religion  very  different,  I  must  say  that 
Lindsey,  Jebb,  Hammond,  Disney,  and  others,  who  have  sacrificed 
their  preferment  [in  the  church  of  England]  to  the  peace  of  their  own 
minds,  are  honorable  men  deserving  of  all  praise.  —  David  Simpson  : 
Plea  for  Religion,  p.  165. 

Meek,  gentle,  and  humane ;  acute,  eloquent,  and  profoundly  skilled 
in  pohtics  and  philosophy,  —  take  him  for  all  and  all,  the  qualities  of 
his  heart,  with  the  abilities  of  liis  head,  and  you  may  rank  Price  among 
the  first  ornaments  of  liis  age.  .  .  .  Posterity  will  do  him  the  justice 
of  which  the  proud  have  robbed  him,  and  snatch  him  from  the  ailum- 
niators,  to  place  him  in  the  temple  of  personal  honor,  high  among 
the  benefactors  of  the  human  race.  —  ViCESlMUS  Knox  :  Spirit  of 
Despotism ;  in  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  197. 

The  religious  tenets  of  Dr.  Priestley  appear  to  me  erroneous  in  the 
extreme ;  but  I  should  be  sorry  to  suffer  any  difference  of  sentiment 
to  diminish  my  sensibility  to  virtue,  or  my  admiration  of  genius.  From 
him  the  poisoned  aiTow  Anil  fall  jjointless.  His  enhglitened  and  active 
mind,  his  imweaxied  assiduitj',  the  extent  of  his  researches,  the  light  bj 


94  UNITARIANS  DISTINGmSHED   FOR 

has  poured  into  almost  every  department  of  science,  will  be  the  admira- 
tion of  that  period  when  the  greater  part  of  those  who  have  favored, 
or  those  who  have  opposed  him,  will  be  alike  forgotten.  Distinguished 
merit  will  ever  rise  superior  to  oppression,  and  will  draw  lustre  from 
reproach.  Tlie  vapors  which  gather  round  the  rising  sim,  and  follow 
it  in  its  course,  seldom  foil,  at  the  close  of  it,  to  form  a  magnificent 
theatre  for  its  reception,  and  to  invest  with  variegated  tints,  and  ■with 

a  softened  effulgence,  the  luminaiy  which  they  cannot  hide 

Though  I  disapprove  of  his  [Dr.  Price's]  religious  principles,  I  feel  no 
hesitation  in  affirming,  in  spite  of  the  frantic  and  unprincipled  abuse 
of  Burke,  that  a  more  ardent  and  enlightened  fiiend  of  his  country 
never  lived  than  that  venerable  patriarch  of  freedom.  —  IL  ILvLL  : 
fTorks,  vol  ii.  pp.  23,  and  99,  100. 

Thus  generously  and.  eloquently  does  Robert  Hall,  the  large-hearted 
Christian,  defend  the  virtues  and  the  reputation  of  the  "  Socinian  "  I'riestley 
and  the  "Arian  "  Price.  But  the  same  Hall,  as  the  narrow-minded  Calvinist, 
in  a  Letter  dated  Feb.  5,  1816  (Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  256),  feels  no  hesitation  in 
putting  "  Socinians"  on  a  level  with  "professed  infidels,"  and  inferring  from 
John  vi.  40  and  1  John  v.  12,  that  they  will  be  excluded  from  the  realms 
of  heaven.  Alas  for  some  of  the  best  and  most  devout  of  men,  if  superior 
virtue  adorning  the  character  in  private  life,  and  eminent  endowments 
devoted  to  the  public  good,  be  passed  by  as  altogether  worthless  in  the  great 
judgment-day,  and  nought  avail  but  a  belief  in  dogmas  which  have  been 
regarded  by  their  rejecters  as  dishonoring  God  and  libelling  humanity! 
May  we  not  say,  in  the  language  of  Hall  himself  (ii.  p.  100),  where  he  is 
vindicating  his  eulogy  of  Priestley,  that  "  if  any  thing  could  sink  Orthodoxy 
into  contempt,  it  would  be  its  association  with  such  Gothic  barbarity  of 
sentiment"  ? 

Let  Dr.  Priestley  be  confuted  where  he  is  mistaken.  Let  him  be 
exposed  where  he  is  superficial.  Let  him  be  repressed  where  lie  is 
dogmaticiil.  Let  him  be  rebulccd  where  he  is  censorious.  But  let  not 
his  attainments  be  depreciated,  because  they  are  numerous,  almost 
without  a  parallel.  Let  not  his  talents  be  ridiculed,  because  tlicy  are 
superlatively  greiit  Let  not  his  monds  be  ^^lified,  because  they 
are  correct  without  austerity,  and  exemplary  without  ostentation ; 
because  they  present,  even  to  common  obser\ers,  the  innocence  of  a 
hermit  and  the  sim])licity  of  a  patriarch ;  and  because  a  pIiilosoj)hic 
eye  will  at  once  discover  in  them  the  dce])-fixcd  root  of  virtuous  ])rin- 

cijjle,  and  the  solid  trunli  of  virtuous  habit. I  have  visited  liim, 

as  I  hope  to  visit  him  again,  beciiuse  he  is  an  unaffected,  unassuming, 
and  very  interesting  companion.     I  will  not,  in  consequence  of  om 


THEIR   MORAL  AND  INTELLECTUAL  WOKTU.  95 

different  opinions,  either  impute  to  him  the  enl  which  he  does  not,  or 
depreciate  in  iiira  the  good  which  he  is  allowed  to  do.  I  will  not 
debase  my  understarjding,  nor  prostitute  my  honor,  by  encouraging 
the  clamors  which  have  been  raised  against  him,  in  vulgar  minds,  by 
certain  persons,  who  would  have  done  well  to  read  before  they  wrote, 
to  understimd  before  they  dogmatized,  to  examine  before  they  con- 
demned, lleadily  do  I  give  him  up,  as  the  bold  defender  of  heresy 
and  scliism,  to  the  well-founded  objections  of  his  antagonists ;  but  I 
cannot  think  his  religion  insincere,  while  he  worships  one  Deity,  in  the 
name  of  one  Saviour.  ...  I  know  that  his  vu'tues,  in  private  life,  are 
acknowledged  by  his  neighbors,  admired  by  his  congregation,  and 
recorded  almost  by  the  unanimous  suffrage  of  his  most  powerful  and 
most  distirig^uished  antagonists.  —  Dr.  Samuel  Parr  :  Works,  vol.  iiL 
pp.  317;  282-4. 

In  a  letter  to  Archbishop  Magee,  from  whicli  we  shall  again  take  occasion 
to  quote,  Dr.  Pakr  says  that  there  were  several  Unitarians  with  whom  he 
thought  it  an  honor  to  be  acquainted;  avows  ''  the  sincere  respect"  which 
he  felt  "  for  their  intellectual  powers,  their  literary  attainments,  and  their 
moral  worth;"  and  concludes  by  making  honorable  mention  of  the  distin- 
guished writers  among  the  Polish  Socinians,  called  the  Fratres  Puluiii,  and 
amongst  others,  of  the  following  English  Unitarians:  Dr.  Nathaniel  Lardner, 
Dr.  John  Jebb,  Dr.  John  Taylor,  Theophilus  Lindsey,  Thomas  Belsham,  the 
Duke  of  Grafton,  Newcome  Cappe,  Charles  Berry,  E.  Cogan,  James  Yates, 
J.  G.  Robberds,  and  Dr.  William  Shepherd.  In  reference  to  Belsham's  work 
on  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  Dr.  Pakr,  in  the  Bibliotheca  Parriana,  p.  «1,  says: 
"  I  do  not  entirely  agree  with  him  upon  some  doctrinal  points ;  but  I  ought  to 
commend  the  matter,  stj^le,  and  spirit  of  the  Preface;  and,  in  my  opinion, 
the  translation  does  great  credit  to  the  diligence,  judgment,  erudit>-»n,  and 
piety  of  my  much-respected  friend." 

The  more  fervent  admirers  of  Thomas  De  Quincey  may  place  but  little 
reliance  on  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Park,  as  a  Trinitarian,  to  the  excellent 
qualities  of  mind  and  heart  which  he  attributes  to  the  English  Unitarians; 
'or,  in  an  Essay  which  we  think  is  marked  alike  by  its  exceeding  cleverness 
and  its  bitter  partisanship,  the  writer  says  (Philosophical  Writers,  vol.  11. 
p.  272),  that  Park  "  has  left  repeated  evidence,  apart  from  his  known  iean- 
iiig  to  Sociniati  views,  that  he  had  not  in  any  stage  of  his  life  adopted  any 
system  at  all  which  could  properly  class  him  with  the  believers  in  the 
Trinity."  But  the  Rev.  William  Field,  one  of  his  biographers,  who  was 
intimately  acquainted  with  him,  and  who  was  himself  a  Unitarian  minister, 
says  (vol.  ii.  p.  268)  that  Pakr  declared  he  was  not  a  Unitarian.  Dr.  ^ohn 
Johnstone,  another  of  his  biographers,  states  (vol.  vi.  p.  685)  that  he  had 
heard  Parr  repeatedly  declare  that  liis  notions  of  the  Trinity  were  pre« 
cisely  those  of  the  profound  Bishop  Butler,  author  of  the  Anulogv  of 
Religion;    in  the  Letter  to  Archbishop  Magee  previously  referred  t'     ^T 


96  UNITARIANS   DISTINGUISHED  FOR 

Parr  requests  his  Grace  to  do  him  the  justice  to  obsei-ve,  that  he  "  meant 
not,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  deleiid  the  heretical  opinions  adopted  bj-  any 
of  the  worthies  whom"  he  had  "enumerated;"  and,  in  a  note  to  his 
Dedication  of  the  Warburtonian  Tracts  (Works,  #bl.  iil.  p.  3S7),  he  says, 
"  I  by  no  means  assent  to  the  opinions  which  Dr.  I'riestley  has  endeavored 
to  establish  in  his  History  of  the  Corruptions  of  Christianity."  (See  also 
Sermon  40,  in  Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  464.) 

Notwithstanding  his  eccentricities,  his  displays  of  vanity,  his  want  of 
common  prudence,  and  his  {)olitical  and  theological  antipathies,  no  one  who 
has  read  the  records  of  him  published  by  Mr.  Field  and  Dr.  Johnstone  can 
doubt,  that,  besides  being,  what  he  unquestionably  was,  a  benevolent  and 
pious  man,  a  warm  friend  of  popular  education,  and  a  bold  advocate  for 
Christian  charity  and  universal  toleration,  he  was  also  sincere  and  truthful 
in  his  professions.  De  Quincey  himself,  p.  293,  —  though  he  qualifies  his 
praise  by  saying  that,  "  in  a  degree  which  sometimes  made  liim  not  a  good 
man,"  he  was  "  the  mere  football  of  passion,"  —  is  forced  to  sum  up  the 
appreciation  of  his  character  by  the  remark,  that,  "  as  a  moral  being.  Dr. 
Pakk  was  a  good  and  conscientious  man."  May  we  not,  therefore,  reason- 
ably conclude,  that,  when  the  "  conscientious  "  curate  of  Hatton  affirms 
that  he  did  not  hold  the  leading  doctrine  which  distinguishes  Unitarians 
from  their  fellow-Christians,  he  is  quite  worthy  of  our  credence?  And  is 
not  the  testimony  of  this  distinguished  Kpiscopalian  to  the  intellectual, 
moral,  and  religious  character  of  English  Unitarians  deserving  of  high  con- 
sideration, in  oppf)sition  to  the  attempts  that  have  been  so  often  made  to 
take  from  them  "  the  jewel  of  their  souls,"  —  their  "  good  name  "  ? 

K  ever  there  was  a  writer  whose  wisdom  is  made  to  be  useful  in 
the  time  of  need,  it  is  Mrs.  Barbauld.  No  moralist  has  ever  more 
exactly  touched  the  pomt  of  the  greatest  practicable  jjurity,  ^^•ithout 
being  lost  in  exaggeration,  or  sinking  into  meanness.  ...  It  is  the 
privilege  of  such  excellent  writers  to  command  the  sjinpathy  of 
the  distant  and  miborn.  It  is  a  dehghtful  part  of  their  fame ;  and 
no  writer  is  more  entitled  to  it  than  Mrs.  Barbauld.  —  Sir  James 
>L\CKix Tosil :  Letter  to  Mrs.  John  Taylor,  JVorwich ;  in  Memoirs 
of  his  Life,  vol.  i.  pp.  441-2. 

We  have  taken  for  granted  that  Sir  James  was  orthodox  as  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity;  but,  if  otherwise,  as  some  of  his  expressions  recorded 
in  the  Memoirs  would  seem  to  imply,  his  opinion  of  the  moral  influence 
of  Mrs.  Barbauld's  writings  may  not  be  the  less  just.  Whatever  were  his 
religious  views,  he  unquestionably  combined  in  his  character  the  qualities 
of  philosopher,  patriot,  moralist,  and  Christian. 

I  sit  down  to  thank  your  Grace  for  your  kind  attention  in  sending 
me  the  "  Imjjroved  Version  of  the  New  TestimienL"  ...  I  give  due 
praise  to  the   Committee  for  their  Introduction  to  tliis  work  :  it  is 


THEIR  MORAL  AND  INTELLECTUAL  WORTH.  97 

written  \vith  the  sincerity  becoming  a  Christian,  and  with  the  erudition 
becoming  a  translator  and  a  commentator  on  so  important  a  book,  — 
Bishop  Watson  :  Letter  to  the  Dvke  of  Grafton ;  in  Life  of  JVutson, 
pp.  492-3. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  Thomas  Belsham  was  the  principal  editor 
of  this  worli.  Notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said  of  it  by  orthodox  wri- 
ters as  the  representative  of  Unitarian  interpretations,  neither  the  version, 
which  was  founded  on  that  of  Archbishop  Newcome,  nor  the  notes,  liowe^er 
valuable,  have  been  regarded  by  Unitarians  in  general  as  au  authority 
binding  on  them. 

My  previous  impressions  of  his  [Dr.  Lant  Carpenter's]  amiable  and 
upright  character  have  been  strengthened  by  the  perusal  of  his  work 
[entitled,  "An  Examination  of  Charges  against  Unitarians  and  Uni- 
tarianism "].  His  candor,  integrity,  and  good  temper,  besides  his 
intellectual  ability,  give  to  his  writings  an  immense  advantage  over  the 
imbecile  arrogance,  the  rash  crudities,  and  the  still  more  dishonorable 
artifices,  of  some  persons  on  whom  he  has  felt  himself  called  to  ani- 
madvert. —  John  Pye  Smith  :  Scripture  Testimony,  vol.  ii.  p.  476, 
fourth  edition. 

Dr.  Smith's  concluding  remarks  evidently  refer,  in  particular,  to  Arch- 
bishop Magee,  whose  Postscript  to  his  work  on  the  Atonement  is  dislionorably 
distinguished  by  the  foulest  injustice  to  the  character  and  talents  of  English 
Unitarians. 

When  we  see  a  fellow-man  and  fellow-sinner,  whose  character  is 
adorned,  not  only  with  blameless  morals  and  %rith  those  honorable 
decencies  of  Hfe  to  which  the  world  pays  homage,  but  vdth  untiring 
activity  in  excellent  deeds,  warm-hearted  beneficence,  exemplary  virtue 
in  all  the  walks  of  life,  and  the  clearest  evidence,  to  those  who  possess 
full  and  close  opportunities  for  the  observation,  of  constant  "  walking 
with  God,"  not  in  the  solemnities  of  public  worship  only,  but  in  the 
family  and  the  most  retired  privacy ;  and  when  this  habit  of  life  has 
been  sustained,  with  unaffected  simplicity  and  uncompromising  con- 
stixncy,  during  a  life  long,  active,  and  exposed  to  searching  observation ; 
—  when  such  a  character  is  presented  to  our  view,  it  would  warrant 
the  suspicion  of  an  obtuse  understanding,  or,  what  is  worse,  a  cold 
heart,  not  to  resemble  Barnabas,  "  who,  when  he  came  and  saw  the 
grace  of  God,  was  glad ;  for  he  was  a  good  man,  and  full  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  of  faith."  .  .  .  We  have  been  led  almost  unavoidably  into 
this  train  of  reflections,  by  opening  the  volume  before  us  ["  Sermons 
on  Practical  Subjects  by  the  late  Lant  Carpenter,  LL.D."],  and  under 

9 


98  UNITARIANS  DISTINGUISHED  FOR 

the  influence  of  high  personal  regard  to  its  author.  In  that  feeling 
we  only  participate  with  many  both  of  orthodox  Dissenters  and  the 
e\-angelical  members  of  the  Establishment,  It  was  scarcely  possible 
for  an  upright  person  to  know  Dr.  Carpenter,  and  not  to  love  and 
venerate  him.  —  Eclectic  Review  for  June,  1841 ;  new  series,  vol.  ix. 
pp.  669-70. 

In  the  same  Review  for  February,  1843  (vol.  xiii.  pp.  205-19),  may  be 
seen  an  articleA>ccapioned  by  the  publication  of  the  "  Memoirs  of  tlie  Life 
of  Dr.  Carpenter."  It  is  written  in  a  liberal  and  Christian  spirit;  and, 
thoup;h  widely  differing  from  Carpenter  in  tlie  religious  opinions  which  he 
held,  tlie  author  expresses  the  warmest  reverence  for  the  character  of  that 
excellent  man. 

When  the  day  comes  when  honor  will  be  done  to  whom  honor  is 
due,  he  [Dr.  Guthrie]  can  fancy  the  crowd  of  those  whose  fome  jjoets 
have  sung,  and  to  whose  memory  monuments  have  been  niised,  cU\id- 
ing  like  a  wave ;  and,  passing  the  great  and  the  noble  and  the  mighty 
of  the  land,  this  poor,  obscure  old  man  stepping  forward,  and  recei\  ing 
the  especial  notice  of  Him  who  said,  "  Liasmuch  as  ye  did  it  to  one 
of  the  least  of  these,  ye  did  it  also  to  me."  —  Extract  from  Speech 
delivered  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Guthrie,  at  Edinburgh,  February,  18oj; 
apud  London  Inquirer. 

Dr.  GuTiiuiE,  who  is  one  of  the  influential  ministers  of  the  Free  Church 
of  Scotland,  refers  to  the  late  John  Pounds,  the  Portsmouth  cobbler,  of 
philanthropic  celebrity.  This  most  worthy  man,  this  friend  of  destitute  and 
ignorant  children,  is  known  in  England  to  have  held  Unitarian  views. 

The  late  Mr.  Buckminster,  of  Boston,  .  .  .  was  one  of  the  most 
accomplished  scholars  of  his  age.  —  Dr.  Gardinkr  Spring  :  First 
Things,  vol.  ii.  p.  357. 

Dr.  Clianning  was,  notwithstancHng  the  errors  of  his  theologicid 
opinions,  a  beautiful  specimen  of  a  man,  —  warm,  serious,  philanthrojjic, 
calm,  self-controlled,  earnest,  and  often  enthusiastic.  "With  a  refined 
taste,  a  love  of  letters,  and  a  nol)le  indejjendencc  of  mind,  he  joined  a 
cultivated  miderstanding,  an  effective  style,  and  an  admiral )le  elo- 
quence. —  Christian  Review  for  June,  1848;  vol.  xiii.  p.  '30o. 

William  Ellery  Clianning  was  what  all  orthodox  beUcvers  will  admit 
to  be  much  better  [than  a  Socinian] :  he  was  an  Arian,  and  a  very  high 
one  J  but,  more  than  this,  he  was  a  man  of  purest  sincerity,  of  jiro- 
found  humility,  and  universid  charity.  Clianning  must,  in  fact,  be 
admitted  to  have  been  either  a  saint  or  a  hypocrite;  and  the  man  who, 
after  a  personal  accpiainUmce  with  him,  or  the  reading  ot   bis  works 


THEIR  MORAL  AND  INTELLECTUAL  "WORTH  99 

and  biography,  is  prepared  to  say  he  was  a  hj-pocrite,  may  be  assured 
that  he  is  not  much  unfitted  to  be  one  himself.  —  Abel  Stevens,  in 
Methodist  Quarterly  Review  for  January,  1849. 

Whatever  kind  of  Arianism  Chaiining  maj'  have  professed  to  hold,  we 
are  inclined  to  believe,  that,  though  he  did  not  sympathize  either  with  the 
religious  tenets  of  Socinus  or  with  the  philosophic  speculations  of  Priestley 
and  Belsham,  his  writings  in  general  are  pervaded  by  the  doctrine,  —  which 
appears  to  be  less  esteemed  than  formerly  by  American-  Unitarians,  but 
which,  whether  true  or  not,  is  consistent  with  the  loftiest  conceptions  of  the 
mission  and  character  of  Christ,  —  that  our  Lord  was,  while  on  earth,  what- 
ever he  may  have  previously  been  in  heaveif,  a  human  being,  not  merely  in 
the  properties  of  his  body,  but  in  the  faculties  and  affections  of  his  soul. 
Instead  of  saying  that  Channing  was  either  an  Arian  or  a  Socinian,  it  would 
be  perhaps  more  correct  to  speak  of  him  simply  as  a  Unitarian  Christian. 
This  remark  is  made  only  by  way  of  correcting  what  we  think  to  be  a 
mistake,  which  does  not  lessen  the  value  or  truth  of  the  eulogium  paid  by 
the  writer  to  the  purity  and  liberality  of  Channing's  character. 

We  have  no  sjTiipathy  \nth  the  distinguishing  elements  of  his 
creed  [the  creed  of  Henry  Ware,  jun.]  ;  we  beheve  it  to  be  unscrip- 
tural ;  yet,  when  we  see  constantly  a])pearing  his  self-condemnation, 
his  sense  of  unworthiness,  his  reverence  of  God,  his  efforts  to  do  good 
to  men's  souls,  his  submission  to  the  most  painful  allotments  of 
Providence,  his  calmness  and  joy  in  the  prospect  of  death,  following 
an  unusually  spotless  and  serious  Hfe,  we  cannot  find  it  in  our  heart  to 
condemn  him  "  because  he  followeth  not  with  us."  —  Christian  Review 
for  May,  1846;  vol.  xi.  p.  148. 

A  true,  faitliful  daughter,  wife,  mother,  friend ;  with  no  eccentrici- 
ties, no  extravagances,  no  marvellous  quahties  of  head  or  hand ;  but 
with  an  honest  truthfulness  of  nature,  a  willing  spirit  of  self-sacrifice, 
and  an  ever-losing  heart,  —  such  was  Maiy  L.  Ware.  ...  It  is  by 
such  women  that  woman's  rights  are  best  vindicated  by  the  steadfast 
performance  of  women's  duties.  Mrs.  Ware's  religious  Hfe  was  pure 
and  uns])otted ;  and,  had  she  lived  in  a  warmer  atmosjjhere  of  Christian 
feehng,  slie  would  have  been  a  model,  besides,  of  Christian  experience. 
—  Methodist  Quarterly  Review  for  July,  1853 ;  fourth  series,  vol.  v. 
p.  314. 

No  translation  has  appeared  in  England,  since  that  of  Isaiah  by 
Lowth,  which  can  sustain  a  repubible  comparison  Avith  that  of  the  book 
of  Job  by  Mr.  Noyes.  With  some  slight  exceptions,  this  latter  is 
very  much  what  we  could  wish  it  to  be.  —  Spirit  of  the  Pilf^ms  fm 
February,  1829;  vol.  ii.  p.  93. 


100  UNITARIANS  DISTINGUISIIED  FOR 

The  volume  which  bears  the  title  given  above  ["  The  E\-idences  of 
the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  by  Andi'ews  Norton ;  vol.  1 ;  Boston, 
1837  "]  is  cert-.iinly  a  production  of  no  ordinary  stamp,  and  is  a  pheno- 
menon in  our  literary  hcmisjjhere  which  ought  to  excite  much  interest. 
.  .  .  Mr.  Norton  has  cleared  himself  most  explicitly  and  fully  from  the 
charge  that  has  sometimes  been  made  against  him,  ^'iz.,  that  he  is  a 
Naturalist,  or  a  so-called  Rationalist  of  the  lowest  order.  That  the 
Saviour  is  a  teather  from  God,  and  endued  with  miraculous  powers,  is 
what  he  openly  declares  himself  to  believe.  —  Moses  Stuart,  in 
Biblical  Repository  for  ^Ipril,  1838;  vol.  xi.  pp.  265,  287. 

Professor  Norton's  work  [on  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels]  .  .  . 
is  highly  honorable  to  the  writer's  learning  and  diligence ;  and,  as  the 
American  echtion  was  dear  and  very  scarce,  we  are  not  suri)rised  that 
it  should  be  republished  in  London.  [After  expressing  hLs  dissatis- 
fiiction  Avith  Mr.  Norton's  views  respecting  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  the  reviewer  proceeds :]  It  is  but  justice  to  the  author  to 
say,  at  the  same  time,  that  some  of  his  suggestions  are  worthy  of 
consideration  ;  proceeding,  as  they  ajjjjarently  do,  from  a  mind  of  inde- 
pendent hat)its,  richly  furnished,  and  jjatient  in  the  pursuit  of  truth. 
It  is  our  notion  that  the  cause  of  Orthodoxy  will  be  better  served 
by  calmly  examining  what  he  says,  than  by  hastily  denouncing  him 
as  an  unbeliever.  —  Eclectic  Review  for  April,  184S;  new  series, 
voL  xxiiL  pp.  437-9. 

§  2.  Umtarians  in  General. 

Socinus  and  his  followers,  being  great  masters  of  reason,  and  decj)ly 
learned  in  matters  of  morality,  mingle  almost  all  religion  with  it,  and 
form  religion  purely  to  the  model  and  jilatform  of  it.  —  Sir  Matthew 
Hale  :  Ji  Discourse  of  Religion,  p.  27. 

They  [tlie  Perf(?fctionists]  live  strictly,  and  in  many  things  speak 
rationally,  and  in  some  things  veiy  confidently.  They  excel  the 
Socinians  in  the  strictness  of  their  doctrine,  but,  in  my  opinion,  fall 
extremely  short  of  them  in  their  expositions  of  the  practiad  Scrip- 
ture. —  Jeremy  Taylor  :  Letter  to  Evelyn ;  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  Ixxxv. 

Yet  to  do  right  to  the  writers  on  that  [the  Socinian]  side,  I  must 
own,  that  generally  they  are  a  jxittem  of  the  fair  way  of  disputing, 
and  of  del)ating  matters  of  religion  without  heat  and  unseemly  reflec- 
tions upon  their  advers;iries.  .  .  .  They  generally  argue  matters  with 
that  temper  and  gravity,  and  with   that  freedom  from  passion  and 


THEIR  MORAL  AND   INTELLECTUAL   WORTH.  101 

transport,  which  becomes  a  serious  and  weighty  argument ,  and,  for 
tlie  most  part,  they  reason  closely  and  clearly,  with  extraordinary 
guard  and  caution,  vaXh.  gi-eat  dexterity  and  decency,  and  yet  with 
smartness  and  subtihy  enough ;  with  a  very  gentle  heat  and  few  hard 
words,  —  virtues  to  be  praised  wherever  they  are  found,  yea,  even  in 
an  enemy,  and  very  worthy  om-  imitation.  In  a  word,  they  are  the 
strongest  managers  of  a  weak  cause,  and  which  is  ill  founded  at 
the  bottom,  that  perhaps  ever  yet  meddled  with  controversy ;  inso- 
much that  some  of  the  Protestants  and  the  generahty  of  the  Popish 
writers,  and  even  of  the  Jesuits  themselves,  who  pretend  to  all  the 
reason  and  subtilty  in  the  world,  are,  in  comparison  of  them,  but  mere 
scolds  and  bunglers.  —  Arcubishop  Tillotson  :  Sermon  44;  in 
Works,  vol.  iii.  pp.  197-8. 

I  must  also  do  this  right  to  the  Unitarians  as  to  own,  that  theii* 
rules  in  moraUty  are  exact  and  severe ;  that  they  are  generally  men 
of  probity,  justice,  and  charity,  and  seem  to  be  very  much  in  earnest 
in  pressing  the  obhgations  to  very  high  degi-ees  in  virtue.  —  Bishop 
Burnet,  as  quoted  by  Adam,  in  Relig.  World  Displayed,  vol.  ii.  p.  173. 

See  also  Life  of  Burnet,  by  his  son,  prefixed  to  the  "  History  of  His  Own 
Time,"  vol.  i.  p.  xi.  In  the  passage  here  referred  to,  his  biographer  says 
that  in  1664  the  Bishop  went  to  Holland,  and  became  acquainted  with  the 
leading  Dutch  Arminians,  Lutherans,  Unitarians,  &c. ;  "amongst  each  of 
whom,  he  used  frequently  to  declare,  he  had  met  with  men  of  such  real 
piety  and  virtue  "  that  he  became  fixed  in  his  principle  of  universal  charity. 

In  stating  and  describing  the  duties  of  men,  they  [the  Polish 
Socinians]  were  obliged  to  be  uncommonly  rigorous,  because  they 
maintained  that  the  object  for  which  God  sent  Jesus  Christ  into  the 
world  was  to  promulgate  a  most  perfect  law.  .  .  .  Here  also  we 
unex^jectedly  meet  with  this  singularity,  that,  while  on  other  subjects 
they  boldly  offer  the  greatest  \'iolence  to  the  language  of  the  sacred 
vTiters  in  order  to  obtain  support  for  their  doctrines,  they  require  that 
whatever  is  found  in  the  Scriptures  relating  to  the  life  and  to  morals 
should  be  understood  and  construed  in  the  most  simple  and  Hteral 
miinner.  —  J.  L.  MosHEiM :  Ecclesiastical  History,  book  iv.  cent.  xvi. 
sect.  3,  part  2,  chap.  4,  §  18. 

In  the  honest  exercise  of  the  reasoning  powers  with  which  God  endowed 
them,  the  Polish  Unitarians,  so  "uncommonly  rigorous"  in  the  inculcation 
and  practice  of  the  moral  duties  of  the  gospel,  came  to  a  different  conclusion 
in  religious  matters  from  other  Protestai:*  churches;  and  therefore  they 
"  boldly  ofiered  the  greatest  violence  to  the  language  of  the  sacred  writers." 


102  UNITARIANS  D1STINGUISU£D   to\i 

With  regard  to  their  moral  code,  the  principles  of  the  Unitarians 
do  not  seem  to  admit  their  loosening,  in  the  least,  the  bonds  of  duty : 
on  the  contrary,  they  appear  to  be  actuated  by  an  earnest  desire  to 
promote  practical  religion.  .  .  .  Love  is,  with  them,  the  fulfilling  of  the 
law;  and  the  habitual  practice  of  mtue,  from  a  principle  of  love  to  God 
and  benevolence  to  man,  is,  in  their  judgment,  "  the  sum  and  substance 
of  Chi-istianity."  —  Robert  Adam  :  Religioits  World  Displayed,  art. 
"  Unitiirians,"  vol.  ii.  p.  173. 

Extract  from  a  Letter  to  Archbishop  Magee.  —  With  surprise  and 
with  concem,  I  observed  that  in  one  of  them  [one  of  the  Charges] 
yom-  Grace  has  spoken  SAvecpingly  of  the  Unifcirians  as  illiterate.  The 
expression,  my  Lord,  astonished  me.  .  .  .  Li  a  dispute  which,  about 
one  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago,  was  carried  on  with  gi'eat  \iolence, 
Bishop  Wettenhal  wrote  a  very  judicious,  candid,  and  conciliatory 
pamphlet,  which  I  found  in  a  huge  mass  of  controversial  writings,  in 
which  he  descril)es  the  Socinians  as  active,  as  zealous,  as  acute,  as 
dexterous  in  disjnitation,  as  blameless  in  the  general  tenor  of  their 
lives,  and,  he  adds,  even  pious,  with  exception  to  theu*  o\ra  peculiar 
tenets.  Every  man  of  common  sense,  my  Lord,  will  perceive  that  the 
qualif  jing  words  are  the  result  of  discretion  and  episcopal  decorum,  and 
were  uitended  probably  for  a  kind  of  sop  to  soften  the  Cerberean  part 
of  the  priesthood.  Be  this  as  it  taay,  the  represent;ition  which  Bishop 
WixrKNiiAL  gave  of  his  Sociniim  contemporaiies  corresponds  nearly 

with  my  own  observations  u])on  my  omu  Unitarian  contemporaries 

Extract  from  a  Letter  to  the  Dissenters  of  Birmingham.  —  Though  he 
[Dr.  Parr,  speaking  of  himself]  does  not  profess  himself  an  advocate 
of  many  of  your  tenets  [the  tenets  held  by  the  Birmingham  Unitaruins], 
he  can  with  sincerity  declare  himself  not  an  enemy  to  your  persons. 
He  knows  only  few  among  you,  but  he  thinks  well  of  many.  He 
respects  you  for  temi)crance  and  decency  in  private  life ;  for  diligence 
in  your  employments,  and  ^punctuality  in  your  eng;igcments ;  for 
economy  without  parsimony,  and  liberality  Anthout  profusion  ;  for  the 
readiness  you  show  to  relieve  distress  and  to  encourage  merit,  with 
little  or  no  distinction  of  ])arty ;  for  the  knowledge  which  many  of  you 
have  acquired  by  the  dedication  of  your  leisure  hours  to  intellectual 
imjn'ovement,  and  for  the  regidarity  with  which  most  of  you  are  said 
to  attend  religious  worship.  As  to  some  late  deplorable  events,  he 
believes  that  you  have  been  misrepresented  :  he  knows  that  you  have 
been  wronged.  — 1)R.  Samuel  Parr  :  Works,  vol.  L  pp.  G72-3;  and 
voL  iiL  p.  306. 


THEIR  MORAL  AND   INTELLECTUAL   WORTH.  103 

The  Unjtarian  teachers  by  no  means  profess  to  absolve  their  follow- 
ers from  the  unbending  strictness  of  Christian  morality.  They  prescribe 
the  jiredominant  love  of  God,  and  an  habitual  spirit  of  devotion.  — 
Wm.  Wilberforce  :  Practical  View  of  the  Prevailing  Religious 
Systems,  chap.  vii.  sect.  3. 

So  far,  well.  "  But,"  this  distinguished  philanthropist  adds,  "  it  is  an 
■unquestionable  fact,  .  .  .  that  this  class  of  religionists  is  not  in  general  dis- 
tinguished for  superior  purity  of  life,  and  still  less  for  that  frame  of  mind 
which  .  .  .  the  word  of  God  prescribes  to  us  as  one  of  the  surest  tests  of  our 
experiencing  the  vital  power  of  Christianity.  On  the  contrary,  in  point 
of  fact,  Unitarianism  seems  to  be  resorted  to,  not  merely  by  those  who  are 
disgusted  with  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Christianity,  but  by  those  also  who . 
are  seeking  a  refuge  from  the  strictness  of  her  practical  precepts,"  &c. 
How  easily,  by  adopting  the  same  principles  of  reasoning,  might  Deists 
prove  Christianity  in  general  to  be  answerable  for  all  the  vices  of  her  pro- 
fessed adherents !  The  sweeping  charges,  however,  made  here  against  the 
moral  and  religious  character  of  Unitarians  are  refuted  by  the  more  candid 
statements  of  other  opponents,  quoted  in  our  pages. 

I  cannot  conclude  without  expressing  the  con\'iction,  that  much  con- 
sideration is  due,  both  of  respect  and  of  affectionate  concern,  to  those 
who  hold  the  sentiments  which  in  these  pages  have  been  opposed. 
To  the  great  talents  and  labors  of  many  of  them,  the  Christian  world 
is  under  eminent  obHgations  for  some  of  the  most  valuable  works  on 
the  eA-idences  of  revealed  religion,  and  for  their  ser\ices  to  the  cause 
of  religious  liberty  and  the  rights  of  conscience.  —  Dr.  John  Pye 
Sjiitii  :  Scriptiire  Testimony  to  the  Messiah,  vol.  ii.  p.  424. 

In  their  [the  Unitarian]  body,  I  number  many  of  the  friends  of  my 
early  days ;  and  the  recollection  of  the  intercourse  of  the  past  is  even 
now  delightful :  —  men  who  dignify  and  adorn  the  stations  which  they 
occupy  in  society ;  some  of  whom  will  leave  their  names  to  posterity, 
identified  with  the  improvements  of  science,  the  cultivation  of  the  arts 
which  embellish  human  life,  and  the  giimd  schemes  of  philanthropy 
by  which  the  present  condition  of  man  is  elevated  and  purified,  have  I 
had  the  honor  of  numbering  among  my  friends.  —  Dr.  TnoaiAS 
Byrth  :  Lecture  on  Unitarian  Interpretation  ;  in  Liverpool  Contro- 
versy, p.  159. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  that,  by  the  existing  law,  the  sect  of  Uni- 
tarians Is  entitled  to  the  fullest  measure  of  toleration ;  and  it  would  be 
absurd  to  hold,  that  there  was  any  thing  to  corrupt  nrtue,  or  outrage 
decency,  in  tenets  which  have  I)ecn  advocated  in  our  owti  days  by  men 
of  such  eminent  talents,  exempLiry  piety,  and  pm-e  Uves,  as  Pric^ 


104  UNITARIANS   DISTINGUISHED   FOR 

Priestley,  and  Channing,  and  to  wliich  there  is  reason  to  think  neither 
Milton  nor  Newton  was  disinclined.  —  LoilD  Jeffrky  ;  apud  Chris- 
tian Reformer,  new  series,  vol.  vi.  p.  194. 

At  least  three  qimrters  of  my  time  have  been  spent  among  writers 
of  the  Unitarian  class,  from  whom  I  have  received,  with  gratitude, 
much  instruction  relative  to  the  philology,  the  exegesis,  and  the  lite- 
rary history  of  the  Scriptures.  —  MoSES  Stu.vrt  :  Answer  to  Chan- 
ning, Let.  iiu 

This  passage  does  not  appear  in  tlie  last  edition  of  Stuart's  Letters, 
published  1846,  in  a  volume  of  his  writings  entitled  "  Miscellanies." 

Many  of  the  teachers  of  this  [the  Unitarian]  heresy  are  thoroughly 
skilled  in  scholastic  theology,  logic,  and  metiij)hysics ;  in  history, 
antiquities,  philolog}',  and  modem  science ;  well  versed  in  the  ancient 
languages ;  bold  and  subtle  bibhcal  critics ;  prepared  to  take  advan- 
tage of  an  imprudent  or  incautious  adversary ;  and  thus  to  triumph 
over  truth  itself  in  the  eyes  of  supei-ficial  observers,  when  their 
sophistry  seems  to  get  the  victorj'  over  its  unskill'ul  defender.  — 
Philip  Lindsly  :  Jl  Plea  for  the  Theol.  Seminary  at  Princeton,  A*.  J., 
pp.  28-9,  tliird  edition;  Trenton,  1821. 

Professor  Lindsay  prefaces  these  remarks,  —  which,  despite  of  the  latter 
portion,  will  be  seen  to  be  highly  liuulatorv,  —  by  saying  that  "Modern 
Unitarianism  is  exactly  suited  to  the  natural  character  of  men,"  to  the 
depravity  of  their  hearts,  and  "  is  more  to  be  dreaded  than  any  species  of 
infidelity  ever  yet  avowed."  That  is  to  say,  a  religion  wliich  teaches  that 
"as  a  man  soweth,  so  shall  he  reap,"  —  which,  in  the  name  of  the  gi-eat 
Messenger  of  Heaven,  assures  us  that  we  are  responsible  to  God  lor  every 
thought  we  think,  every  feeling  we  cherish,  every  word  we  utter,  every  act 
we  perform,  —  "  is  more  to  be  dreaded"  than  the  infidelity  which  disowns 
the  God  of  nature  and  revelation,  which  ignores  alike  the  gospel  of  Christ 
and  the  dictates  of  conscience,  and  which  therefore  makes  no  distinction 
between  virtue  and  vice.  The  heretical  teachers,  however,  whose  belief  in 
God  and  Christ,  heaven  and  hell,  is  worse  than  any  species  of  infidelity,  are 
"many  of  them,"  the  writer  in  a  note  kindly  says,  "no  doubt  sincere  in 
their  profession  "  of  Christianity. 

The  defect  of  the  liberal  [the  Unitarian]  school  is,  that  their  religion 
18  not  moral.  We  mean  not  strongly  and  distinctively  so.  We  know 
that  none  insist  more  earnestly  than  they  on  a  good  life,  and  on 
the  vanity  of  all  religious  pretension  without  it. . . .  We  give  them  the 
highest  ])niise  for  the  estinrate  in  which  they  hold  the  graceful  ameni- 
ties and  the  sweeter  charities  of  social  intercourse.     We  give  tliciu 


THEIR  MORAL  AND  INTELLECTUAL  WORTH.  105 

the  highest  praise  for  insisting  on  kindness  to  all,  as  the  only  sjjirit 
which  a  Christian  should  cherish ;  courtesy,  as  the  only  external 
robe  which  he  should  wear ;  and  good  works,  as  the  only  results  that 
should  follow  in  the  path  in  which  he  treads.  We  admire  the  high 
spirit  of  honor,  the  delicate  sense  of  propriety,  the  stern  commercial 
integrit}',  which  are  fostered  and  exliibited  by  so  many  who  are  trained 
under  the  influences  of  liberal  Christianity.  The  mtellectual  spirit, 
the  elevation  above  the  vulgar  gentility  of  mere  wealth,  which  are 
diffused  through  many  —  not  all  —  of  its  social  circles ;  the  truthful- 
ness to  nature,  in  manners  and  in  taste ;  the  high  appreciation  of 
intellectual  and  moral  institutions ;  the  public  spirit  which  so  la\ishly 
pro^ides  for  them ;  and,  above  all,  the  strict  and  careful  conscientious- 
ness which  trains  and  moulds  many  an  esteemed  and  honored  friend, 
—  are  virtues  of  no  mean  value,  and  are  not  the  chance  gi-owth  of 
natiu-e.      They  show  culture,  —  intellectual,  social,  moral,  —  of  the 

highest  order.     But  these  in  themselves  are  not  religion We 

cannot  think  of  them  as  inheriting  and  upholding  so  many  of  the 
religious  and  social  institutions  founded  by  their  and  our  honored  sires 
of  the  Pilgrim  stock,  without  caring  for  them  for  the  fathers'  sake. 
We  honor,  for  its  own,  a  reHgious  community  that  embraces  so  much 
that  is  noble  in  cultivated  intellect ;  so  much  that  is  high  and  honor- 
able in  its  noble  spirit ;  so  much  that  is  enlarged  and  generous  in  it£ 
social  feelings.  But,  &c.  —  JVew  Englanderfor  October,  1844 ;  voL  ii. 
pp.  537,  539,  558. 

In  all  ages,  ever  since  the  days  of  Celestius,  Julian,  and  Pelagius, 
there  have  been,  in  large  numbers,  men  highly  estimable  for  intelli- 
gence and  benevolence,  and  animated  by  a  strong  desire  of  urging 
society  onward  in  the  pursuit  of  moral  excellence,  who  have,  never- 
theless, earnestly,  perseveringly,  and  with  deep  emotion,  opposed  this 
system  [the  peculkr  characteristic  of  which  is  the  doctrine  of  a  suj^er- 
natural  regeneration  rendered  necessary  by  the  native  and  original 
depravity  of  man],  as  at  war  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  honor 
and  right,  and  hostile  to  the  best  interests  of  humanity.  —  Dr. 
Edward  Beecher  :  Conflict  of  Ages,  p.  3. 

In  this  paragrajili,  Dr.  Beechek  refers  particularly  to  Unitarians;  and 
afterwards,  when  quoting  from  some  of  their  writers,  he  speaks  of  Judge 
Story  as  •'  that  great  luminary  of  American  jurisprudence;"  of  Channing 
as  a  ''  distinguished  philanthropist ;  "  and  of  "  other  eminent  men  "  belonging 
to  this  denomination  of  Christians,  such  as  Dr.  John  Taylor,  Ware,  Sparks, 
Norton,  Dewey,  Buniap,  and  E.  H.  Sears.  Their  opposition  to  Augustinian 
and  Caiviuistic  theology  he  does  not,  as  many  of  his  orthodox  brethren, 


106  UXITAIUAXS   DISTINGUISHED   FOB 

attribute  to  the  depravity  of  man's  heart,  to  human  pride,  carnal  reason, 
or  hatred  to  the  truth,  but,  while  dissenting  from  their  views,  candidly  owns 
that  "  they  were  actuated  by  noble  and  sublime  principles,"  and  that  "  the 
existence  of  the  Unitarian  body  is  a  providential  protest  in  favor  of  the  great 
principles  of  honor  and  right,"  on  the  part  of  God,  towards  the  descendants 
of  Adam.  One  of  the  great  excellences  of  Dr.  Beeciiek's  remarkable  and 
paradoxical  work  is,  that  he  avoids  the  dogmatizing  and  illiberal  tone  wh'.jh 
is  so  common  among  controversialists,  and  throughout  it  demeans  Lira^^elf, 
not  only  as  a  scholar,  but  as  a  gentleman  and  a  Christian. 

You  [Unitarians]  are,  I  am  aware,  benevolent  men,  a  great  many 
of  you  eager  for  sanitiiry,  social,  political  reformation.  In  so  far  as 
you  feel  —  and  I  am  sure  many  of  you  do  feel  —  a  sincere,  fervent 
admiration  and  love  for  the  character  of  Jesus  Christ,  in  so  ftir  as  you 
believe  him  to  be  the  wisest,  holiest,  most  benignant  Teacher  the 
world  ever  had,  are  not  you  in  danger  of  setting  a  man  above  God  ? 
....  In  the  sad  hours  of  your  life,  the  recollection  of  that  Man  you 
read  of  in  your  childliood,  the  Man  of  sorrows,  the  great  sympathiser 
with  human  woes  and  sufferings,  rises  up  before  you,  I  know :  it  has  a 
reality  for  you,  then ;  you  feel  it  to  be  not  only  beautifid,  but  true. . . . 
While  we  are  frivolous,  exclusive,  heartless,  no  arguments  ought  to 
convince  us  of  Christ's  incarnation :  they  woidd  c;irry  their  o\vii  con- 
demnation with  them,  if  they  did.  When  we  are  aroused  to  think 
earnestly  what  we  are,  what  our  rektion  to  our  fellow-men  is,  what 
God  is,  —  the  voice  wliich  says,  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt 
among  us,"  "  The  Son  of  God  was  manifested  tliat  he  might  desti'O} 
the  works  of  the  devil,"  will  no  more  be  thought  of  as  the  voice  of  an 
apostle.  We  shall  know  that  he  is  speaking  to  us  himself,  and  that 
he  is  the  Christ  that  should  come  into  the  world.  —  Let  no  Unitarian 
KU])])ose  that  these  last  words  are  pointed  at  him ;  tliat  I  su])pose  he 
has  gi-eater  need  of  repent;uice  than  we  have,  because  some  special 
moral  obliquity  has  prevented  him  from  recognizing  the  truth  of  the 
inciU'nation.  I  liad  no  such  meaning.  I  was  tliinking  much  more  of 
the  orthodox.  I  was  considering  how  many  causes  hinder  us  from 
confessing  with  oiu'  hearts  as  well  as  our  hi)s,  that  Christ  has  come 
m  the  Hesh.  The  conceit  of  our  Orthodoxy  is  one  cause.  What- 
ever sets  us  in  any  ^dse  above  our  fellow-men  is  an  obst;\cle  to  a 
hearty  belief  in  the  Man  :  it  must  be  tiken  from  us  before  we  sliall 
redly  bow  our  knees  to  him.  I  know  not  that,  if  he  were  now  walk- 
ing visibly  among  us,  he  miglit  not  sa\'  that  many  a  Unitariim  was  far 
nearer  the  kingdom  of  heaven  tluui  many  of  us;  less  choked  with 
prejudice,  less  seL'-conlident,  more  capaijle  of  recognizing  the  gre;;t 


THEIR  MORAL  AND  INTELLECTUAL  WORTH.  107 

helper  of  the  wounded  man  who  has  fallen  among  thieves,  than  we 
priests  or  Levites  are,  because  more  ready  to  go  and  do  likewise. 
I  cannot  say  that  tliis  might  not  be  so ;  I  often  suspect  that  it  would 
be  so ;  and  therefore  I  certainly  did  not  intend  to  convey  the  impres- 
sion that  the  moral  disease  at  the  root  of  their  most  vehement 
intellectual  denials  is  necessarily  a  malignant  one.  ...  I  am  nearly  sure 
that  many  Unitarians  Avould  sooner  die  than  give  up  the  act  of  prayer, 
and  that  they  believe  it  not  to  be  the  falsest,  but  the  truest,  of  all  acts ; 
that  wliich  is  necessary  to  make  them  sincere,  and  keep  them  sincere. 
I  do  not  doubt  that  the  greater  part  of  Unitarians,  even  those  who 
retain  Dr.  Priestley's  dogma  of  Necessity  in  their  speculative  creed, 
contrive  to  separate  the  idea  of  Him  they  call  Father  from  that 
Necessity.  They  confess  a  Will :  they  do  not  worship  a  mere  God 
of  nature ;  and  they  can  beheve,  that  this  Will  may  govern  them  in 
some  different  way  from  that  in  which  he  governs  the  trees  and 
flowers  and  streams.  —  F.  D.  Maurice:  Theological  I^says,  pp.  11, 
71-2,  88-9,  329;  New  York  edition. 


Additional  testimonies  to  the  high  moral  and  intellectual  character  of 
Unitarians  might  have  been  introduced  into  this  section;  and  some  of  these 
would  have  brought  into  notice  other  honored  names,  not  yet  mentioned. 
But  tlie  extracts  which  have  been  made  are  enough  for  our  present  purpose ; 
which  is  to  show,  —  without,  we  trust,  a  spirit  of  pride  or  of  pharisaic  boast- 
ing, —  that  Uuitarianism  numbers  among  its  adherents  some  of  the  best 
and  wisest  of  men  that  have  ever  lived;  that,  though  frequently  branded  as 
blasphemers  of  tlie  Saviour,  the  believers  in  the  simple  oneness  of  God  have 
not  been  undistinguished,  either  as  individuals  or  as  a  church,  for  thoir 
moral  worth  and  sincere  piety;  that,  though,  jn  common  with  other  classes 
of  Dissenters  in  England,  excluded  from  the  highest  seats  of  learning  in  that 
country,  and  sometimes  spoken  of  in  the  United  States  and  elsewhere  as  the 
merest  sciolists,  tliey  have  manifested,  in  the  productions  of  their  pen,  no 
gross  deficiency  in  either  classical  or  scriptural  knowledge;  and  that,  though 
small  in  numbers  as  compared  with  the  professors  of  orthodox  views,  they 
have  in  some  instances  displaj-ed  a  philosopliic  skill  and  a  poetical  power 
which  will  for  ever  associate  their  names  with  those  of  the  gifted  few  who 
have  pre-eminently  stood  out  as  the  improvers  and  leaders  of  a  world's 
intellect,  —  the  benefactors  of  their  race.  These  testimonies  are  cited 
merely  to  prove,  that,  as  respects  the  chai-acter  and  the  attainments  of 
Antitrinitarians,  there  is  nothing  which,  judging  d  priori,  should  prevent 
an  investigation  into  the  evidence  presented  in  favor  of  the  opinions  which 
they  profess,  and  which  many  of  them  have  adorned  by  their  lives,  ani 
recommended  in  their  writings.  Similar  observations  will  apply  even  with 
greater  force  to  the  extracts  made  ir.  the  following  sectiou. 


1U8  UNITARIANS  ENTITLED  TO   TUE  CllRISTIAX   NAMB 


SECT.  IX.  —  UNITARIANS   ENTITLED  TO   THE   CURISTLVN   NAME. 

A.  —  I  honor  and  admire  Caius  for  his  great  learning. 

B.  —  The  knowledge  of  the  Sanscrit  is  an  importiint  article  in  Caius's  learning. 

A.  —  I  have  been  often  in  his  company,  and  have  found  no  reason  for  belieT- 
ing  this. 

B.  —  Oh !  then  you  deny  his  learning,  are  envious),  and  Caius's  enemy. 

A.  —  God  forbid  I  I  love  and  admire  him.  I  know  him  for  a  transcendent  linguist 
in  the  Hebrew,  Greek,  Latin,  and  modern  European  languages;  and,  with  or  without 
the  Sanscrit,  I  look  up  to  him,  and  rely  on  his  erudition  in  all  ctuses  in  which  I  am 
concerned.  And  it  is  this  perfect  trust,  this  unfeigned  respect,  that  is  the  appointed 
criterion  of  Caius's  friends  and  disciples,  and  not  their  full  acquaintance  with  each 
and  all  particulars  of  his  superiority.  S.  T.  Coleridge. 

There  is  another  thing  which  .  .  .  my  censurer,  and  others  such  as 
he,  generally  stand  by ;  to  \nt,  if  a  person  be  any  tiling  ingenious,  or 
more  learned-than  ordinary,  and  ^vrites  out  of  the  common  road,  he  is 
presently  a  Socinian ;  as  if  all  men  of  sense  must  needs  turn  Socinians. 
...  If  he  will  say  that  Socinus  was  mistaken  in  a  great  many  things, 
I  fully  agi'ce  with  him ;  but  I  am  reckon  uj)  a  great  many  worse  errors 
than  liis,  whereof  I  shall  mention  but  one,  out  of  respect  to  my  cen- 
surer ;  that  is,  of  those  who  tliinlv  men  deserve  eternal  torments,  whom 
Christ  never  condemned ;  who  by  all  means  persecute  those  that 
differ  from  them,  though  they  own  themselves  to  be  as  liable  to  error 
as  the  very  men  whom  they  persecute ;  who,  in  a  word,  think  they 
may,  upon  very  slight  suspicions,  traduce  men  that  are  heartily  devoted 
to  Clu-istianity,  and  sober  in  their  lives,  as  a  kind  of  pLxgues  to  be 
carefully  shunned.  He  tliat  does  not  ascribe  to  Christ  what  he  thinks 
Christ  never  assumed  to  himself,  if  otherwise  he  perform  constant 
obedience  to  all  his  precepts  which  he  fully  understands,  may  obtain 
the  forgiveness  of  his  ignorance  from  a  most  fdvora1)le  and  compas- 
sionate Judge ;  but  he  that  breaks  the  command  of  loving  his  neighl)or, 
which  is  as  clear  as  the  sun  at  noon-day,  by  slandering  and  bitterness 
and  cruelty,  and  dies  in  those  vices,  shall  never,  unless  a  new  gospel  be 
made  for  him,  be  admitted  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  —  Lk  Ci.Klic  : 
Preface  to  his  Supplement  to  Hammond ;  a3  qitated  in  the  Unitarian 
Miscellany  for  February,  1823. 

It  will  apptrar  that  the  several  denominations  of  Christians  agree 
both  in  the  subst;uice  of  religion,  and  in  the  necessary  enforcements 
of  the  jjractice  of  i* ;  tliat  tiie  world  and  all  things  were  cre.ited  by 
God,  and  are  mider  the  direction  and  goveninient  of  his  all-powerl'uj 


UNITARIANS   ENTITLED  TO   THE  CHRISTIAN   NAME.  lOO 

hand  and  all-seeing  eye ;  that  there  is  an  essential  difference  between 
good  and  evil,  virtue  and  ^'ice;  that  there  will  be  a  state  of  future 
rewards  and  punishments,  according  to  our  behavior  in  this  life ; 
that  Christ  was  a  teacher  sent  from  God,  and  that  his  apostles  were 
divinely  inspired ;  that  aU  Christiiins  are  bound  to  declare  and  profess 
themselves  to  be  his  disciples ;  that  not  only  the  exercise  of  the  several 
Airtues,  but  also  a  belief  in  Christ,  is  necessary  in  order  to  their  obtain- 
ing the  pardon  of  sin,  the  favor  of  God,  and  eternal  life;  that  the 
worship  of  God  is  to  be  performed  chiefly  by  the  heart,  in  prayers, 
praises,  and  tlianksgiving ;  and,  as  to  all  other  points,  that  they  are 
bound  to  Uve  by  the  rules  which  Christ  and  his  apostles  have  left  them 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Here,  then,  is  a  fixed,  certain,  and  uniform 
nile  of  fiiith  and  practice,  containing  all  the  most  necessary  points 
of  religion  established  by  a  divine  s;xnction,  embraced  as  such  by  all 
denominations  of  Christians,  and  in  itself  abundantly  sufficient  to  pre- 
serve the  knowledge  and  practice  of  religion  in  the  world.  —  BiSHOP 
Gibson  :  Second  Pastoral  Letter,  pp.  20-1. 

Unitarians  acknowledge  the  truth  of  these  primary  principles,  and  are 
therefore  entitled  to  the  appellation  of  Christians. 

Once  I  remember  some  narrow-minded  people  of  his  [Dr.  Dod- 
dridge's] congregation  gave  him  no  small  trouble  on  account  of  a 
gentleman  in  communion  with  the  chm-ch,  who  was  a  professed  Arian, 
and  who  otherwise  departed  from  the  common  standard  of  orthodoxy. 
This  gentleman  they  wished  either  to  be  excluded  from  the  ordinance 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  to  have  his  attendance  upon  it  prevented ;  but 
the  doctor  declared,  that  he  would  sacrifice  his  place,  and  even  his  life, 
rather  than  fix  any  such  mark  of  discouragement  upon  one  who,  what- 
ever his  doctrinal  sentiments  were,  appeared  to  be  a  real  Christian.  — 
Dr.  Kippis,  in  Biographia  Britannica,  vol.  v.  p.  307. 

Some  of  the  Unitarian  doctrines  do,  indeed,  appear  to  many  of  us 
extremely  unscriptural;  and  yet  it  must  be  acknowledged,  however 
\\ide  of  the  truth  these  doctrines  may  be,  there  is  a  very  great  and 
essential  difference  between  them  and  Deism.  .  .  .  However  mistaken 
these  people  may  be,  yet,  while  they  continue  to  own  Jesus  Christ  as 
their  Lord  and  Sa\iour,  support  liis  cause  in  general  as  the  cause  of 
truth,  and  lead  pious  and  virtuous  Uves,  we  should  not  deny  them  the 
honor  of  the  Chiistian  name,  rank  them  among  absolute  infidels,  and 
consign  them  to  eternal  perdition,  as  too  many  do.  They  liave  still  a 
right  to  a  place  in  our  fraternal  affection ;  and  we  should  pity  and  pray 

10 


110  UNITARIANS  ENTITLED   TO   THE  CHRISTIAN   NAME. 

for  them,  and  by  all  rational  means  endeavor  to  reclaim  them,  but 
by  no  means  revile  and  persecute  them,  or  even  hurt  a  hair  of  tlieir 
heiuls.  —  D.  Turner,  of  Abingdon :  Free  TItoughls  o?i  Free  Inquiry 
in  Religion  ;  apud  Field's  Letters,  p.  67. 

We  and  the  Socinians  are  said  to  differ;  but  about  ■what?  Not 
about  morality  or  natmixl  religion,  or  the  di\ine  authority  of  the 
Christian  religion  :  we  differ  only  about  wlmt  we  do  not  imderstond, 
and  about  what  is  to  be  done  on  the  jjart  of  God.  ...  A  heathen 
Socrates,  I  think,  would  be  surprised  at  those  who  agreed  in  so  many 
things  requiring  declarations  and  subscriptions,  in  order  to  exclude 

one  another And  my  difficulty  is  increased,  when  I  fuid  that 

making  this  decbration  [respecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity]  sepa- 
rates me  from  Christians  whom  I  must  acknowledge  to  be  rational  and 
well  informed ;  from  those  who  have  studied  some  parts  of  Scripture 
with  singular  success.  —  Dr.  John  PIky  :  Lectures  in  Divinity,  vol.  n. 
pp.  41,  249. 

I  never  attempted  either  to  encourage  or  discourage  his  [the  Duke 
of  Grafton's]  profession  of  Unitarian  prmciples ;  for  I  was  happy  to  see 
a  person  of  his  rank  professing,  with  intelligence  and  with  sincerity, 
Christian  principles.  If  any  one  thuilvs  that  an  Unitiiiiui  is  not 
a  Christian,  I  plainly  say,  without  being  myself  an  Unitiriiin,  tliat  I 

think  otherwise The  Clu'istian  rehgion  is  wholly  comprised 

in  the  New  Testament ;  but  men  have  interpreted  that  book  in  various 
ways,  and  hence  have  sprung  up  a  great  variety  of  Christian  churches. 
I  scrui^le  not  giving  the  name  of  Christian  churches  to  assemblies  of 
men  uniting  together  for  public  worship,  though  they  may  differ 
somewhat  from  each  other  in  doctrine  and  in  discipline ;  whilst  they 
all  agree  in  the  funckmcntal  principle  of  the  Christian  religion,  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  In  tliis  the  Greek,  the 
Latin,  and  all  the  reformed  churches  have  one  and  the  same  fai^h-  — 
Bishop  Watson  :  Life,  j)]).  47,  and  412-13. 

Oh  that  I  could  prevail  on  Christians  to  melt  dowii,  imder  the 
warm  influence  of  brotherly  love,  all  the  distinctions  of  Methodists, 
Independents,  Bajitists,  Anabajjtists,  Trinifcirians,  .\rians.  Unitarians, 
in  the  glorious  name  of  Christians ;  men  of  large,  generous,  benevolent 
minds,  above  disputing  for  trifles ;  men  who  love  one  another  as  men, 
sons  of  the  same  Almighty  Parent,  heirs  of  the  same  salvation  by 
Jesus  Cln-ist !  Let  us  throw  away  our  petty  badges  of  distinction ; 
distinction,  where,  in  fact,  there  is  no  difierence;  and  let  us  walk 
togethei-,  liand  in  luuid,  into  the  church,  up  to  the  altar,  and  give  and 


UNITARIANS  ENTITLKD  TO   THE  CHRISTIAN   NAME.  1 1  1 

forgive,  and  love  one  another,  and  live  in  unity  in  this  world,  the  few 
years  poor  mortals  have  to  live,  that  we  may  meet  in  love,  never  again 
to  be  diA"ided,  m  heaven ;  Avhere  will  no  more  be  found  the  narrow, 
dark,  cold,  wretched  prejudices  of  Uttle  sectaries,  caviUing  at  each 
other,  stingmg  their  opponents,  venting  the  xirulence  of  their  temper 
in  defence  of  a  rehgion  that  forbids,  above  every  thing,  all  rancor,  all 
malice,  all  evil-thinking,  and  all  e^il-speaking.  —  ViCESiiMUS  Knox  : 
Sermons ;  in  IVorks,  vol.  vi.  p.  50. 

With  no  ordinary  pleasure  have  we  made  this  extract  from  Dr.  Knox. 
It  is  fraught  with  "thouglits  that  breathe"  a  spirit  of  divine  love,  —  with 
"words  that  burn"  with  all  the  fire  of  a  catholic  Christianity.  These 
Bentiments  will  not  be  deemed  the  less  effective  because  they  come  from  one 
who  did  not  regard  all  opinions  as  of  equal  or  of  trifling  importance,  but  who 
was  a  devoted  admirer  of  the  doctrines  of  the  church  of  England,  and  who,  as 
"a  believer  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,"  lamented  that  Unitarians  should, 
as  he  expresses  it,  "  zealously  lower  our  Saviour  in  the  opinion  of  his  follow- 
ers."    See  Preface  to  his  Sermons  as  published  in  1792,  pp.  vi.  and  vii. 

I  am  no  Socinian,  I  am  no  Arian,  whatever  the  maUce  of  others 
mav  have  suggested,  or  your  own  suspicions  allowed.  And  while  I 
love  Jebb  as  a  man,  wliile  I  defend  him  as  a  scholar,  wliile  I  will  assist 
him  if  injured,  and  vote  for  him  if  attacked,  I  can  yet  distinguish 
between  him  and  his  principles,  between  the  license  of  aml)ition  or 
novelty  and  the  honest  zeal  of  the  well-meaning  Christian.  —  William 
Bennet  (l)efore  he  became  Bishop  of  Cloyne),  mi  Letter  to  Dr.  Parr, 
dated  Sept.  18,  1770;  apud  Parr^s  Works,  vol.  vii.  p.  77. 

Though  many  of  us  differ  from  you  [Dr.  Priestley]  in  matters  of 
religious  taith,  we  trust  that  we  have  better  learned  the  spirit  of  our 
excellent  religion  than  not  to  esteem  in  you  that  character  of  piety  and 
virtue  which  is  the  l)est  fruit  of  every  faith,  and  that  ardor  for  truth 
and  manly  inquiry  wliich  Christianity  in\ites,  and  which  no  form  of 
Christianity  ought  to  shrink  from ;  as  well  as  to  admire  those  eminent 
abilities  and  that  unwearied  perseverance  which  give  acti\'ity  to  the 
virtues  of  yovu-  heart,  and  to  which,  in  almost  every  walk  of  science,  your 
country  and  the  world  have  been  so  much  indebted.  .  .  .  Though 
your  enemies  have  attacked  you  in  that  way  wherein  jou  feel  perhaps 
most  sensibly,  yet  we  rejoice  to  find  in  you  that  decent  magnanimity, 
that  Christian  bearing,  which  raises  you  superior  to  suffering ;  and  that 
a  regard  to  God,  to  truth,  and  to  another  world,  have  even  from  the 
bosom  of  affliction  enabled  you  to  extract  a  generous  consolation- 
Whether  in  your  religious  inquiries  you  liave  erred  or  no,  we  firmly 


112  UNITARIANS  ENTITLED  TO  THE   CIUUSTIAN   NAME. 

believe  that  truth  and  tlie  best  mterests  of  mankind  have  been  the 
object  of  your  constant  regard;  and  we  trust  that  that  God  who  loves 
an  honest  and  well-meaning  heart  will  dispense  to  you  such  protection 
as  to  his  wisdom  may  seem  most  fit  To  his  benevolent  and  fatherly 
protection  we  devoutly  recommend  you  through  the  remainder  of  your 
lil'e ;  ]3raying  that  jou  may  be  long  preserved,  that  you  may  survive 
the  liatred  of  your  ungrateful  country,  and  that  you  may  rejxiy  her 
cruel  injuries,  by  adding,  as  you  have  liitherto  done,  to  her  ti-easm-e 
of  science,  of  virtue,  and  of  piety.  —  Extract  from  Address  to  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Priestley;  apud  Yates's  Vindication, 

This  address  was  presented  to  Dr.  Priestley  by  forty-three  ministers  of 
Nottinghamshire  and  Derbyshire,  of  the  Presbyterian,  Independent,  and 
Baptist  persuasions,  soon  after  the  Birmingham  riots  in  1791,  when  the 
valuable  property  of  that  good  and  great  man  was  destroyed,  and  his  life 
endangered,  by  the  outrages  of  a  fanatical  mob. 

[l.J  I  shall  ever  think  and  ever  speak  of  Mr.  AVakefield  as  a  very 
profound  scliolar,  as  a  most  honest  man,  and  as  a  Cliristian  who  united 
knowledge  with  zeal,  piety  \n\h  benevolence,  and  the  deep  simphcity 

of  a  child  with  the  fortitude  of  a  martyr [2.]  He  [Dr.  James 

Lindsay]  had  fine  talents ;  he  had  a  good  store  of  ancient  learning ; 
and  of  modern  literature  his  knowledge  was  various,  extended,  and 
well  digested.  Then,  as  to  liis  moral  qualities,  there,  we  can  scarcely 
say  too  much.  He  was  pure  in  heart,  social  in  temper,  benevolent  in 
spirit,  most  ujiright  in  conduct.  Some  would  say  there  was  a  stern- 
ness aliout  his  integrity ;  and  a  vehemence,  almost  passionate,  in  urging 
the  right  and  opj)osing  the  wrong,  as  it  ai)];eared  to  him,  in  sentiment 
or  action.  But,  in  reahty,  there  was  all  the  sweetness,  as  well  as  all 
the  fairness,  of  amdor.  In  debate,  if  he  was  sometimes  warm,  he  was 
never  overbearing ;  if  there  was  pressuig  earnestness,  there  was  no 
discourtesy  in  his  manner.  As  a  patriot  and  a  philanthropist,  tlio  love 
of  his  country  and  of  liis  kind  was  in  him  a  glowing  passion,  as  well 
as  a  steady  ]jrinci])le.  As  a  Christi;ui  and  a  jjrcachcr,  religion  was  in 
him  a  subject  of  ardent  feeling,  as  well  as  of  honest  profession ;  and, 
though  destitute  of  the  graces  of  elocution,  yet  he  possessed,  in  no 
inferior  degree,  all  the  eloquence  which  sincere  con\iction,  Aivid  con- 
cej)tions,  strong  emotions,  and  great  command  of  hnguage,  can  suj)j)ly. 

[3.]  Extract  from  Letter  to  Archbishop  Ma<rce.  —  And  now, 

my  I>ord,  we  are  come  to  a  ])oint,  upon  which  uin-eservcdly  I  shall 
state  to  you  my  disiqjprobation  of  some  passages  in  your  Cliarges.  It 
pained  me  exceedingly  to  find  tliat  \our  Grace  adopted  tlio  invidious, 


DNITAKIANS  ENTITLED  TO   TILE  CHRISTIAN   NAME  ]  1  3 

and,  I  must  say  fairly,  the  uncharitable  language  of  those  persons  who 
maintain  that  Soeinians  are  not  Christians.  .  .  .  Undisguisedly  and 
indignantly,  I  shall  ever  bear  testimony  against  the  uncharitable  spirit 
which  excludes  the  followers  of  Socinus  utterly  from  the  catholic 
church  of  Christ.  .  .  .  Without  professing  any  partiality  for  Unitarians, 
I  hold  that  they  who  acknowledge  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  promised 
Messiah,  to  have  had  a  direct  and  special  commission  from  the 
Almighty,  to  have  been  endowed  supematurally  with  the  Holy  Spirit, 
to  have  worked  miracles,  to  have  suffered  on  the  cross,  and  on  the 
third  day  to  have  risen  from  the  dead,  —  yes,  my  Lord,  I  hold  that 
men,  thus  beheving,  have  a  sacred  claim  to  be  called  Christians.  — 
Dr.  Samuel  Pakr. 

The  quotations  marked  [1]  and  [3]  are  from  Parr's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  402, 
and  vol.  vii.  pp.  8-10;  that  marked  [2]  is  from  Field's  Memoirs  of  Parr, 
vol.  ii.  p.  283. 

HaAing  always  considered  the  &vorafcle  opinion  of  wise  and  good 
men  as  the  best  reward  which,  on  this  side  of  the  grave,  an  honest 
indi\ddual  can  receive  for  doing  what  he  deems  to  be  his  duty  on  all 
occasions,  I  cannot  but  be  highly  gratified  by  the  approbation  of  so 
respectable  a  body  of  my  fellow-Christians  as  those  are,  an  address  from 
whom  has  been  this  moment  read  to  me.  I  am  most  certainly  a  very 
sincere,  though  a  very  humble,  friend  to  the  cause  of  religious  liberty, 
and  have  uniformly  been  so  from  the  first  moment  I  was  capable  of 
distinguishing  "  quid  sit  pulchinim,  quid  turpe,  quid  utile,  quid  non." 
.  •  .  Revelation,  I  am  sure,  confirms  this  voice  [of  reason],  .  .  .  when  it 
warmly  expostulates  with  those  who  are  fond  of  interfermg  in  matters 
of  conscience. . . .  Let  us,  then,  be  content  to  leave  our  fellow-Christians 
to  stand  or  fall  by  the  judgment  of  our  common  Lord  and  Master,  to 
whom  both  we  and  they  must  hereafter  give  an  account ;  and,  in  the 
mean  time,  should  we  upon  reflection  regard  it  as  a  duty  to  convert 
others  to  our  own  peculiar  opinions,  let  us  never  cease  to  remember 
that  reason  and  argument  are  the  only  weapons  of  spiritual  warfare. 
And,  even  in  the  use  of  these,  we  shall  do  well  constantly  to  bear  in 
mind,  that  revealed  religion  was  graciously  vouchsafed  to  man,  "  non 
disputandi  causa,  sed  ita  vivendi."  —  Henry  Bathurst,  Bishop  of 
Nor\vich,  as  quoted  in  the  Unitarian  Miscellany  for  February,  1823. 

This  extract  is  made  from  a  speech  delivered  by  Bishop  Bathurst, 
Oct.  3, 1822,  in  reply  to  an  address  presented  to  him  by  the  Eastern  Unitarian 
Society,  thanking  him  for  "  his  uniform  attachment  and  marked  devotion  to 
the  cause  of  religious  liberty." 

10* 


114  UNITARIANS  ENTITLED   TO   THE  CHRISTIAN   NAME. 

We  see  in  the  theology  of  Newton  the  verj-  sjju-it  and  principle 
which  gave  all  its  stability  and  all  its  sureness  to  the  philosojjhy  of 
Newton.  We  see  the  same  tenacious  adherence  to  every  one  doctrine 
that  had  such  vahd  proof  to  uphold  it  as  could  be  ga theied  from 
the  field  of  human  exijericnce ;  and  we  see  the  same  firm  resistance 
of  every  one  argument  that  had  nothing  to  recommend  it  but  such 
plausibilities  as  could  easily  be  devised  by  the  genius  of  man,  when  he 
expatiated  abroad  on  those  fields  of  creation  which  the  eye  never 
witnessed,  and  from  which  no  messenger  ever  came  to  us  with  any 
credible  information.  Now,  it  was  on  the  former  of  these  two  prin- 
ciples that  Newton  clung  so  determinedh'  to  his  Bible,  as  the  record 
of  an  actual  annunciation  from  God  to  the  inhabitants  of  this  world. 
When  he  tui-ned  his  attention  to  this  book,  he  came  to  it  with  a  mind 
tutored  to  the  philosophy  of  facts ;  and,  when  he  looked  at  its  cre- 
dentials, he  saAV  the  stiimp  and  the  impress  of  this  philosophy  on 
every  one  of  them.  He  saw  «the  fact  of  Christ  being  a  Messenger 
from  heaven,  in  the  audible  language  by  which  it  was  conveyed  from 
heaven's  canopy  to  human  ears.  He  sixw  the  fact  of  his  being  an 
apj)roved  Ambassador  of  God,  in  those  miracles  which  carried  their  own 
resistless  evidence  along  with  them  to  hmnan  eyes.  .  .  .  He  saw  the 
reality  of  that  supernatural  light  which  inspired  the  prophecies  he 
himself  illustrated,  by  such  an  agi'eement  with  the  events  of  a  ^'ariou8 
and  distant  futurity  as  could  be  taken  cogniamce  of  by  human  obser\'a- 
tion.  He  saw  the  wisdom  of  God  jiervading  the  whole  substance  of 
the  written  message,  in  such  manifold  adapt;itions  to  the  cu-cumsbmces 
of  man,  and  to  the  whole  secrecy  of  his  thoughts  and  his  affections 
and  his  spiritual  wants  and  his  moral  sensibilities,  as,  even  in  tlie  mind 
of  an  ordinary  and  unlettered  peasant,  can  be  attested  by  human  con- 
'sciousness.  These  formed  the  soHd  materials  of  the  basis  on  which 
our  experimentivl  philosopher  stood-  .  .  .  When  I  look  at  the  steady 
and  unmoved  Christianity  of  this  wonderful  man,  so  far  from  seeing 
any  symptom  of  dotage  and  imbecility,  or  any  forgetfuhicss  of  those 
principles  on  which  the  fabric  of  his  philosophy  is  reared,  do  I  see, 
that,  in  sitting  down  to  the  work  of  a  Bible  comment;itor,  he  liath 
given  us  their  most  beautiful  and  most  consistent  exemplification.  — 
Dr.  Thomas  Chalmers  :  Astronomical  Discourses,  Disc.  2 ;  in  Select 
Works,  vol.  iv.  j)p.  3  7  0-6. 

In  his  I'reface,  where  he  endeavors  to  qtialify  this  eloquent  panepyric  on 
Newton  as  an  interpreter  of  the  Bible,  Dr.  CitALMEits  admits,  wliut  soino 
have  unreasonably  denied,  that  that  great  philosopher  was  a  Uuitariau. 


UNITARIANS   ENTITLED  TO   TUE   CHRISTI  IN  NAME.  115 

Dr.  George  Benson  was  a  man  of  great  piety  and  learning,  in- 
tensely studious,  and  unwearied  in  his  researches  after  theological 
truth,  which  was  the  principal  business  of  his  life.  On  aU  occasions 
he  was  a  zealous  advocate  for  free  inquiry  and  the  right  of  private 
judgment ;  but,  though  his  integrity  was  m^questioned,  \et  the  freedom 
with  wliich  he  expressed  his  sentiments  on  some  points  controverted 
amongst  Christians,  exposed  him  to  censm-es  and  indecent  reflections 

from  men  of  little  candor  and  contracted  \iews Dr.  Samuel 

Chandler  in  a  few  years  became  alike  a  Christian,  and  a  classical, 
bibHcal,  and  oriental  scholar.  He  had  long  been  the  subject  of  a 
very  painful  disorder,  which  he  bore  with  the  piety  and  fortitude  of 
a  Christian.  His  remains  were  attended  by  many  eminent  ministers, 
who  during  his  lile  appreciated  his  merits,  and  at  his  death  paid  him 

those  honors  Avliich  his  virtues  and  piety  so  justly  deserved 

In  the  controversy  which  unhappily  raged  in  1718  on  the  Trinitarian 
question,  Dr.  James  Foster  adopted  the  Arian  creed.  His  integrity 
was  unimpeached,  and  he  was  a  decided  Nonconformist.  His  popu- 
larity as  a  preacher  is  said  to  have  been  well  supported  by  a  fine 
commanding  voice,  accompanied  with  an  intrepidity  in  avomng  his 
sentiments,  which  all  ought  to  imitate.  Error  is  never  more  dangerous 
than  when  it  waUvs  in  disguise.  He  was  unjustly  charged  with  Deism 
by  some  who  could  not  distinguish  between  his  negative  creed  and 
complete  infidelity.  He  ever  protested  that  he  was  a  firm  believer  in 
revehtion,  and  despised  the  meanness  of  professing  Christianity  with- 
out conviction Dr.  Nathaniel  Lardner  was  an  ujjright  and 

devout  Christian.  From  the  time  he  enlisted  in  the  cause  of  Chris- 
tianity, he  was  a  faithful  and  sincere  champion,  and  defended  its  cause 
with  great  seriousness  and  solemnity.  —  Abridged  from  William 
Jones,  M.  A.,  Author  of  the  History  of  the  Waldenses :  Christian 
Biography,  a  Dictionary  of  the  Lives  and  Writings  of  the  most 
distinguished  Christians,  pp.  37,  105-6,  161-2,  270. 

In  this  Biography  of  distinguished  Christians,  Mr.  Jones  includes  many 
Other  Unitarians  tlian  those  mentioned  in  the  preceding  extracts. 

The  first  point  to  be  considered  by  those  who  meditiite  the  project 
of  re-miion  is  its  practicabiHty.  Those  who  are  disposed  to  assert  it 
will  observe  the  number  of  important  articles  of  reUgious  faith  in 
wliich  all  Christians  are  agreed,  and  the  proportionally  small  number 
of  those  in  wliich  an}'  Christians  disiigree.  All  Christians  believe,  tli;it, 
1.  There  is  one  God ;    2.  That  he  is  a  Bemg  of  infinite  perfection ; 


1  1  f)  UNITAUTANS   ENTITLED   TO   THE  CHRISTIAN   NAME. 

3.  That  he  directs  all  things  by  his  providence ;  4.  That  it  is  our  duij 
to  love  him  with  all  our  hearts,  and  our  neighbors  as  ourselves ;  5. 
That  it  is  our  duty  to  repent  of  the  sins  we  commit ;  6.  That  God 
pardons  the  truly  penitent ;  7.  That  there  is  a  future  state  of  rewards 
and  punishment,  when  all  mankind  shall  be  judged  according  to  their 
works ;  8,  That  God  sent  liis  Son  into  the  world  to  be  its  Savioui*, 
the  author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all  who  obey  him ;  9.  That  he  is  the 
ti'ue  Messiah ;  10.  That  he  taught,  worked  miracles,  suifered,  died, 
and  rose  again,  as  is  related  in  the  Four  Gospels;  11.  That  he  will 
hereailer  make  a  second  ajjpearance  on  the  earth,  raise  all  manliind 
from  the  dead,  judge  the  world  in  righteousness,  bestow  eternal 
life  on  the  virtuous,  and  pimish  the  workers  of  iniquity.  Li  the 
belief  of  these  articles,  all  Chi'istians  —  Roman  Catholics,  Lutherans, 
Calvinists,  Quakers,  Anabaptists,  and  Socinians  —  are  agreed.  — 
CH.UILES  Butler  :  Reminiscences,  pp.  200-1. 

I  dare  not  hesitate  to  avow  my  regret  that  any  scheme  of  doctrines 
or  tenets  should  be  the  subject  of  penal  kw.  ...  It  is  tlie  manner,  the 
means,  that  constitute  the  crime.  The  merit  or  demerit  of  the  ojjinions 
themselves  depends  on  their  originating  and  determining  causes,  which 
may  differ  in  every  different  believer,  and  are  certainly  known  to  Him 
alone  who  commanded  us,  "Judge  not,  lest  ye  be  judged."  .  .  . 
Judging  by  all  that  we  can  jiretend  to  know  or  are  entitled  to  infer, 
who  among  us  will  take  on  himself  to  deny  that  the  late  Dr.  I'riestley 
was  a  good  and  benevolent  man,  as  sincere  in  his  love,  as  he  was  intre- 
})id  and  indefatigable  in  his  pursuit,  of  truth  ?  .  .  .  Persuaded  that 
the  doctrines  enumerated  in  pp.  229-30,  are  not  only  essential  to  the 
Christian  rehgion,  but  those  which  contradistinguish  the  religion  as 
Clu-istian,  I  merely  assert  this  persuasion  in  another  form,  when  I 
assert,  that,  in  my  sense  of  the  word  "  Christian,"  Unit;iri;xnism  is  not 
Christuuiity.  But  do  I  say  that  those  who  call  themselves  Unitarians 
are  not  Christians  ?  God  forbid  !  I  would  not  tliink,  much  less  pro- 
mulgate, a  judgment  at  once  so  presumptuous  and  so  uncharit;il)le.  — 
Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge  :  ^ids  to  Reflection ;  in  Works,  vol  i. 
pp.  237-9. 

Sentiineiits  of  a  similiir  kind  will  be  found  in  BiogrMphia  Literaria 
(Works,  vol.  iii.  pp.  593-4),  where  Coi.euidgk,  forgettin;;  iiis  "  Confessio 
Fidei "  of  1816  (Works,  vol.  v.  p.  17),  indignantly  contradicts  the  charge  of 
his  having  denied  Unitarians  to  be  Cliristiaiis.  From  the  orthodox  i)oint 
of  view,  this  eminent  writer  could  not  reasonably  be  expected  to  look  oa 
Unitarianism  as  Christianity;  and  it  would  be  equally  unreasonable  to 
expect,  that  fi-om  an  opposite  aud  what  we  would  call  a  more  evangelical 


UNITARIANS  ENTITLED  TO  THE  CHRISTIAN  NAME.  117 

Btand-point,  the  believer  in  the  doctrine  of  the  simple  Unity  of  God  could 
regard  Trinitarianism,  in  its  essential  features  and  its  ecclesiastical  aspect, 
in  any  other  light  than  as  a  relic  of  Heathenism.  But  it  does  not  follow, 
that,  because  they  hold  each  otlier's  opinions  to  be  in  a  great  degree  hostile 
to  the  truths  inculcated  in  Scripture,  the  Unitarian  and  the  Trinitarian  must 
necessarily  think,  one  of  the  other,  that  he  is  altogether  devoid  of  Christian 
principle,  Christian  faith.  Christian  affection;  that  it  is  impossible  for  him 
to  love  the  Lord  Jesus  in  sincerity,  or  to  trust  in  him  as  the  Messiah  and 
tlie  Redeemer,  "  whom  the  Father  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world." 

I  know  very  well  that  my  learned  friend  will  probably  here  saj',  "  I 
do  not  admit  the  Unitarian  to  be  a  Christian ; "  but  I  am  not  obhged 
to  Hsten  to  such  explanation  on  the  part  of  my  learned  friend.  If  the 
Unitaiian  be  not  a  Christian,  it  is  in  consequence  of  that  prerogative 
with  which  my  learned  friend  gratuitously  invests  him,  nameh',  the 
right  of  interpreting  the  Bible  for  himself,  spuming  the  authority  of 
the  church  of  ages,  which  teaches  us  that  Christ  is  both  God  and  man. 
It  is  utterly  useless  for  my  fi'iend  to  tell  me  the  Unitarian  is  not  sincere 
and  Christian.  What !  proscribe  all  the  Unitarians  in  England ;  men 
of  splendid  and  commanding  genius ;  men  of  conscience  and  honor ; 
men  of  integrity  and  truth ;  men  who  live  and  die  —  die  actually  with 
the  persuasion  that  Christ  is  mere  man,  and  "  Intercessor "  —  who 
believe  in  God  most  firmly !  Is  it  just,  is  it  honorable,  to  say  they  are 
not  Christians,  when  it  is  his  very  system,  the  system  which  he  him- 
self recommends,  that  has  caused  their  unchristianization  ?  Oh,  it  is 
really  unfair !  it  is  decidedly  unkind,  ungenerous,  and  unfair  on  the  part 
of  my  learned  friend,  or  on  the  part  of  any  clergjTnan  of  the  church  of 
England  or  Scotland.  —  Mr.  French,  a  Catholic  Barrister :  Discussion 
between  him  and  the  Rev.  J.  Cumming,  at  Hammersmith,  in  1840 ; 
p.  482. 

So  long  as  the  main  sentiment  is  unexceptionable,  we  do  not  think  it 
necessary  to  point  out,  in  all  cases,  the  minor  points  in  which  we  differ  from 
an  author  quoted;  but  we  may  take  the  opportunity  to  remark,  that  Mr. 
FuEisCH  greatly  errs,  when,  in  eulogizing  English  Unitarians,  he  says  it  is 
theu"  persuasion  that  Christ  is  "  mere  man."  Leaving  out  of  view  such 
persons  as  are  termed  Rationalists  or  Transccndentalists,  we  know  of  no  one 
belonging  to  the  Unitarian  denomination,  either  in  Great  Britain  or  in 
America,  who  would  employ  such  a  phrase.  It  may,  however,  have  been 
used  to  imply  only  that  many  Unitarians  have  regarded  Jesus  in  nature  as 
a  human  being,  and  not  an  angel  or  a  God ;  but  the  expression  is  calculated 
to  mislead,  as  if  Humanitarians  thought  that  the  well-beloved  of  the  Father 
was  merely  a  common  or  an  undistinguished  man.  or,  at  the  most,  one  of 
the  old  Hebrew  propliets. 


118  UNITARIANS  ENTITLED  TO   THE   CHRISTIAN   NAME. 

An  Unitarian,  as  such,  is  a  Christian;  that  if-,  if  a  man  follows 
Christ's  law,  and  believes  his  words  according  to  liis  conscientious 
sense  of  their  meaning,  he  is  a  Christian ;  and  though  I  may  think  he 
understands  Christ's  words  amiss,  yet  that  is  a  question  of  interpreta- 
tion, and  no  more.  The  jnu-pose  of  his  heart  and  mind  is  to  obey  and 
be  guided  by  Christ,  and  therefore  he  is  a  Christian.  —  Dr.  TlioMAS 
Arnold  :  Letter  158 ;  in  Life  and  Correspondence,  p.  299. 

When  I  look  at  the  reception,  by  the  Unitarians,  botli  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,  I  cannot,  for  my  part,  strongly  as  I  dislike  their 
theology,  deny  to  those  who  acknowledge  the  basis  of  divine  fact  the 
name  of  Christian.  Who,  indeed,  is  justified  in  denying  the  title  to 
any  one  who  professes  to  love  Christ  m  sincerity  ?  —  Bisiiop  Hampden, 
apud  London  Inquirer  for  December  4,  1847. 

No  man  has  a  right  to  call  himself  a  Cliristian,  if  he  be  not  a 
Chi'istian  in  the  ordinary  acceptation  of  the  word,  —  if  he  do  not,  for 
example,  believe  that  Jesus  Chiist  really  rose  from  the  dead,  according 
to  the  Scrij)tures.  Tliis  common  acceptation  of  the  term  "  Christian  " 
will,  indeed,  include  many  who  hold  what  a])pear  to  us  very  false 
notions  of  Christianity ;  as,  for  instance,  the  Unitarians.  But  we  must 
tiike  language  as  we  find  it.  The  true  meaning  of  a  word  is  what  is 
commonly  luiderstood  by  it ;  neithfer  more  nor  less.  ...  So  it  is  \rith 
the  word  "  Christian."  We  are  not  justified  in  denj-ing  that  title  to 
an  Unitarian,  on  the  ground  that  he  denies  what  we  hofd  as  an  essen- 
tLil  doctrine  of  Christianity.  Nor  would  a  Roman  Catholic  be  justified 
in  refusing  it  to  all  but  members  of  whiit  he  regards  as  the  only  true 
church ;  or  a  Baptist,  to  all  except  those  whom  he  considers  really 
baptized  persons.  ...  A  Christian  —  whatever  any  one  may  conceive 
the  word  ought  to  mean  —  does  mean,  in  ordinary  speech,  neither 
more  nor  less  than  one  who  regards  Jesus  Christ  as  the  foimder  of 
his  religion,  and  as  coming  from  God.  —  Archbishop  Whately  : 
Cautions  for  the  Titnes,  pp.  498-9. 

Ill  pp.  492-3,  this  master  of  language  and  of  logic  proves  —  what  but  tor 
the  cxclusiveness  of  some  religionists  would  require  no  proof — that  "to 
whatever  extent  any  one  has  embraced  Christianity,  his  religion  is  evan- 
gelical." 

I  have  heard  it  once  and  again  affirmed  that  Unitarians  are  not 
Christians ;  and  some,  in  their  unrefiecting  zeai,  —  some  even  of  those 
whom  I  sincerely  resjjcct,  —  liave  gone  so  far  as  to  Cidl  Socinianism  a 
hulf-way  house  towards  infidelity ;  forgetting  tlmt  a  half-way  liouse, 
from  the  nature  of  the  thing,  ex  vi  termini,  must  be  as  v/ell  from  aa 


UNITARIANS  ENTITLED  TO   TUE  CHRISTIAN   NAME.  119 

towards,  —  either  to  infidelity,  or  from  infilclity  to  Christianity;  and, 
accordingly  I  have  known  eminent  converts  from  the  superstitions  of 
tlie  East  who  M'ere  Socinians.  But  when  misguided  men,  of  more 
zeal  than  knowledge,  would  thus  distinguish  the  Unitarian  from  the 
Chi-istian,  whom,  I  will  ask,  do  we  fondly  cite  as  oiur  highest  authori- 
ties when  we  are  engaged  in  defending  our  religion  against  its  infidel 
adversaries  ?  In  arguing  ^vith  these  upon  the  evidences,  how  often 
has  one  said,  "  What  better  would  you  have  than  that  which  satis- 
fied the  greatest  masters  of  science,  the  great  luminaries  of  law  ? 
Who  was  ever  a  better  judge  of  legal  evidence  than  Hale ;  of  moral 
evidence  than  Locke;  of  mathematical  and  j)bysical  evidence  than 
Nevvton  ?  "  And  yet  Locke  at  one  time  labored  under  grave  suspicion 
of  Unitarianisra,  —  groundless,  perhaps,  though  he  was  at  the  least  an 
Arian.  But  that  Newton  was  a  Unitarian  is  quite  certain,  ...  as 
thorough  a  Unitarian  as  ever  attended  Essex-street  Chapel.  My 
noble  and  learned  friend  (Lord  Campbell)  will  find  this  clearly  proved 
by  Sir  David  Brewster  from  examination  of  the  Newton  manuscrijjts, 
which,  that  learned  person  says,  leave  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  upon 
the  subject.  Your  Lordships,  indeed,  ai'e  not  Unitarians :  I  question 
if  there  be  one  in  this  House.  Certainly  there  have  been,  —  the 
Duke  of  Grafton  and  others :  with  them  we  may  not  agree ;  but 
assuredly  their  errors  are  not  to  be  corrected  by  denying  that  Sir  Isaac 
Newton  was  a  Christian,  or  Dr.  Lardner  —  he  to  whose  writings  the 
defence  of  our  reUgion  owes  so  great  an  obligation,  that  they  form  a 
large  proportion,  nay  the  very  foundation,  of  Dr.  Paley's  celebrated 
work.  With  these  eminent  men  you  may  differ ;  you  may  keep  aloof 
as  wide  as  you  will  from  them ;  but  it  is  not  by  denying  the  Chris- 
tianity of  Newton  and  Lardner  that  you  can  turn  Socinians  aside  from 
their  track.  Neither  of  their  heresies  nor  of  far  greater  than  theirs, 
have  I  the  least  dread.  I  have  no  alarm  for  the  truth,  —  no  fear  of 
error.  Let  truth  be  left  to  the  attacks  of  its  enemies,  error  to  the 
care  of  its  friends,  and  I  have  no  apprehension  of  the  result.  But  one 
thing  I  do  fear;  one  thing  does  alarm  me;  and  that  is  persecuted 
error.  —  Lord  Brougham,  in  a  Speech  on  J^ational  Education, 
delivered  in  the  House  of  Lords,  Aug.  4,  18,54  ;  reported  in  Hansard's 
Fnrliamenlary  Debates,  third  series,  vol.  cxxxv.  j).  1313-14. 

Lord  Camph?:ll  merely  rose  to  express  his  disapproval  of  the  man- 
ner in  which,  as  his  noble  and  learned  friend  had  said,  the  Unitarians 
had  been  persecuted.  He  (Lord  Campbell)  was  not  aware  that  Sir 
Isaac  Newton  was  a  Socinian  •  he  had  always  believed  him  to  have 


120  UNITARIANS  ENTITLED  TO   THE   CHRISTIAN  NAME. 

been  an  Arian.  lie  believed,  however,  that  the  Socinians  numbered 
among  themselves  many  men  of  good  educiition,  of  great  attainments, 
and  of  iiTeproachable  lives.  Though  tliis  sect  labored  under  wliat  he 
conceived  to  be  a  lamentable  error,  still  they  were  Christians,  and 
ought  to  be  treated  as  such.  Until  the  repeal  of  the  statutes  of 
William  III.,  Sociniins  had  bbored  under  various  disabihtics,  and  were 
not  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity :  but  now 
they  Avere  pLiced  on  the  same  footing  as  the  other  religious  sects ;  and, 
though  hoping  that  they  might  see  their  error,  he  yet  trusted,  that, 
while  they  continued  in  their  error,  they  would  be  treated  as  Christian 
Orethren,  and  not,  as  they  had  been,  as  something  worse  than  infidels. 
—  Hansard's  Report  of  LoTiD  Campbell's  Reply  to  Lord  Brougham- 

Lords  Bkocgham  and  Campbell  mistake  when  they  draw  a  line  of 
distinction  between  Avians  and  Unitarians,  by  restricting  the  latter  name  to 
Miose  wliom  they,  as  well  as  many  others,  call  Socinians.  An  Arian  believes 
hi  the  pre-existence  of  Christ,  as  a  being  inferior  to  God ;  a  Socinian,  or 
rather  a  Humanitarian,  rejects  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  pre-existence,  and, 
while  regarding  him  as  the  highest  representative  of  Deity  and  as  the 
api)ointed  Saviour  of  the  world,  thinks  tliat  he  was  in  nature  only  a  man. 
But  both  are  Unitarians,  because  they  agree  in  holding  the  doctrine  of  God's 
strict  or  simple  Unity,  and  the  unqualified  subordination  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
to  the  one  God  and  Father  of  all.  It  will  be  seen,  however,  that  our  cor 
rection  does  not  in  the  least  diminish  the  force  of  the  remarks  made  by 
Lords  BuouciUAM  and  Camtbell  as  to  the  religious  standing  of  the  deno- 
mination to  which  they  refer. 

The  denial  of  the  DiAinity  of  Christ  is  undoubtedly  a  great  error ; 
and  an  error  which,  if  admitted,  leads  to  many  other  great  and  inju- 
rious errors.  But  it  is  as  undoubtedly  the  error  of  many  noble  and 
ingenuous  minds,  and  of  many  devout  and  earnest  Christians.  .  .  . 
Grotius,  Le  Clcrc,  and  Wetstcin,  in  Holland ;  and  Whiston,  Samuel 
CLirkc,  Lardner,  Locke,  Newton,  and  Milton,  in  England, — are  all 
reckoned  among  the  rejecters  of  the  Sujjreme  Divinity  of  Christ. 
A  list  of  more  illustrious  names  and  more  eminent  Cliristians  could 
hardly  be  found.  —  Leicester  A.  Sawyer:  Organic  Christianity, 
pp.  408-9,  445. 

The  only  remark  which  it  seems  necessary  to  make  on  Mr.  Sawyer's 
liberal  sentiments  is,  tliat,  though  the  comments  of  Grotius  and  Le  Clerc  on 
many  passages  of  Scripture  are  consonant  with  the  interpretations  usually 
laid  down  by  Unitarians,  these  distinguished  writers  were  professedly  Trini- 
tarian in  their  views,  and  defended  themselves  from  the  charges  of  Aiiti* 
trinitarianism  preferred  by  son:e  of  their  contemporaries  against  them. 


UNITARIANS  ENTITLED  TO   THE   CHRISTIAN  NAJIE.  121 

This  ["  Memoir  of  Mary  L.  Ware  "]  is  a  beautiful  life  of  a  beautifiJ 
character.  The  character  was  not  beautiful  in  the  romantic  incidents 
of  an  existence  diversified  by  strange  adventures,  or  by  the  fascinations 
that  gatlier  around  a  splendid  career  in  society ;  but  it  was  beautiful, 
if  self-sacrifice,  consistency,  cheerfulness,  and  security  can  make  a 
beautifiil  Christian  character.  ...  It  [the  Memoir]  is  a  beautiful 
pendixnt  to  tlie  charming  life  of  her  beloved  husband.  We  commend 
it  most  cordially  to  our  readers,  as  a  firm  example  of  what  a  true 
Christian  woman  should  aim  to  become.  The  ethics  of  the  gospel  are 
here  exhibited  in  their  true  spirit  of  self-devotion  and  self-forgetfulness. 
Wc  could  wish  that  many  who  profess  a  sounder  and  more  consistent 
creed  adorned  their  course  by  a  character  and  a  life  half  as  consistent  as 
were  those  of  Mrs.  Ware.  —  JVeiv  Englander  for  August,  1853  j 
vol.  xi.  (new  series,  vol.  v.)  pp.  477-8. 


In  concluding  a  chapter,  the  materials  for  which  have  been  gathered 
to  show  that  the  spirit  of  Sectarianism  is  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of 
Christianity,  and  whose  tendency  is  to  exhibit  a  truth  which  Christendom 
has  been  slow  to  learn, —  that  the  church  of  Christ  is  not  confined  within 
the  precincts  either  of  Roman  Catholicism  or  of  any  one  of  the  various 
Protestant  denominations,  but  is  co-extensive  with  the  sincere,  the  good, 
the  pure,  and  the  truth-loving,  of  every  name,  who  profess  to  believe  in  God 
and  his  Messiah,  and  who,  whether  they  be  few  or  many,  meet  together  for 
purposes  of  worship  and  instruction,  —  it  may  not  be  inappropriate  to  mafca 
some  remarks  on  the  title  "  Christian,"  which  has  been  denied  by  a  majority 
of  orthodox  believers  to  those  who  differ  from  them  in  opinion,  but  which, 
as  exemplified  in  these  pages,  not  a  few  of  them  have,  in  a  spirit  of  candor 
and  liberality,  applied,  both  individually  and  generally,  to  Unitarians. 

This  word,  "  Christian,"  whether  as  a  noun  or  an  adjective,  occurs,  as 
well  in  books  as  in  conversation,  with  various  and  different  significations. 

1.  It  is  sometimes  used  to  distinguish  a  people  or  nation  whose  religion 
is  ostensibly  that  which  was  taught  by  Christ,  from  those  nations  whose 
opinions  as  to  the  proper  objects  of  faith  and  worship  have  been  taken  from 
other  real  or  supposed  divine  INIessengers.  Thus  we  speak  of  a  Mohammedan 
country,  when  we  mean  to  imply,  not  that  each  and  all  of  its  inhabitants  are 
fii'tliful  to  the  code  of  Mohammed,  but  merely  that  his  religion  has,  to  a  very 
c.inaiderabie  extent,  moulded  the  belief,  the  character,  and  the  usages  of  the 
peoi)le.  So  also  we  speak  of  a  Christian  country,  meaning  by  this  phrase 
that  Christianity  is  more  or  less  blended  with  its  government,  laws,  and 
institutions;  affects  the  state  of  society  and  of  civilization  manifested  by 
all  classes  and  orders  within  its  bounds;  and  holds  a  certain  undefinable 
authority  over  their  faith,  morals,  and  habits.  But  it  is  obvious  that  this 
mode  of  employing  the  term  is  exceedingly  loose.    For,  in  every  such  coun- 

11 


122  UNITARIANS  ENTITLED  TO   THE  CHRISTIAN   NAME. 

try  there  are,  unhappily,  many  but  little  subject  to  the  principles  which 
Jesus  inculcated, —  as  the  professors  of  other  religions,  the  professors  of 
none  at  all,  the  indifferent  and  the  reckless,  the  abandoned  and  the  ifrnorant, 
the  inmates  of  the  prison  or  the  workhouse,  of  whom  some  have  scarcely 
heard  the  name  of  God  or  Christ,  unless  when  associated  with  profanity;  to 
say  nothing  of  the  prevalence  of  passions  and  practices  among  the  professors 
of  Christianity  themselves, —  the  spirit  of  war,  the  craft  of  merchandise,  the 
bane  of  intemperance,  the  zeal  of  partisanship  in  religion  and  politics,  and 
the  curse  of  despotism  or  of  slavery.  But,  though  occasionally  used  in  this 
vague  and  inaccurate  sense,  startling  the  thoughtful  mind  by  the  contrasts 
which  it  awakens,  the  term  is  unambiguous,  and  serves  the  purpose  for  which 
it  is  employed. 

2.  The  word  "Christian"  is  also  sometimes  used  to  point  out  an  indi- 
vidual, of  any  religious  persuasion,  whether  he  be  a  Mohammedan,  a  Jew, 
or  a  Pagan,  who  is  distinguished  from  other  men  by  the  excellence  of  his 
moral  character,  so  marked  in  his  conduct  as  to  resemble,  though  uninten- 
tionally, the  exhibitions  of  the  benevolent  spirit  in  Christ.  In  this  sense 
the  term  was  applied  by  some  of  the  early  Fathers  to  the  virtuous  sages  of 
antiquity.  But  it  is  quite  evident  that  only  by  a  figure  of  speech  can  it  be 
said  of  one  who  lived  before  the  time  of  Christ,  or  who  has  never  heard  of  his 
name,  that  he  is  a  disciple  of  Christ,  or  a  Christian,  no  matter  how  nearly 
he  may  approximate  to  Jesus  in  his  spirit  and  pursuits. 

3.  The  most  common  signification  of  the  term  is  that  according  to  which 
it  is  made  to  denote  a  person  who  assents  to  certain  dogmas  of  a  particular 
branch  of  Christ's  church,  that  are  called,  by  way  of  distinction,  "  sound  " 

'  or  "orthodox."  To  this  use  of  the  word  there  are  strong  objections.  It  is 
too  narrow  in  its  comprehension,  too  vague  and  shifting  in  its  import.  It 
has  its  root  in  spiritual  pride  and  uncharitable  judgment ;  and  its  pestiferous 
breath  would  blast  some  of  the  holiest  affections  that  grace  domestic  and 
social  life.  Every  church,  and  every  -individual  member  of  it,  have  an 
equal  claim  to  call  their  opitiions  orthodox,  and  to  regard  those  which  are 
opposite  as  heretical  or  heterodox ;  and,  if  the  element  of  dogmatic  sound- 
ness enter  into  the  import  of  the  Christian  name,  all  churches  and  all 
individuals  avowing  the  religion  of  Jesus  must  have  respectively  a  right  to 
restrict  this  name  to  themselves,  and  to  withhold  it  from  others.  .And  what 
would  be  the  result  but  a  war  of  words,  burning  zeal,  and  damnatory  denun 
ciations, —  the  very  antipodes  to  the  whole  aim  and  intent  of  Christianity  i 
What  the  result  has  been  is  already  told  in  the  domination  of  the  Itoinisli 
church,  and  in -the  petty  sectarianisms  which  have  so  often  rent  asundei 
the  bonds  of  love  and  communion  between  Protestants. 

4.  A  less  frequent,  but  a  more  liberal,  sense  of  the  term  "  Christian  "  is 
its  application  to  any  one  who,  whatever  may  be  his  peculiar  conception 
of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  admits  the  divine  or  supernatural  mission  of 
its  Founder.  The  word  occurs  only  three  times  in  the  New  Testament, 
Acts  xi.  26;  xxvi.  28.  1  Pet.  iv.  16;  and,  with  the  exception  of  Peter,  floes 
not  seem  to  hnvo  been  used  by  any  of  the  apostles.     Words  however,  of  j. 


UNITARIANS  ENTITLED  TO   THE  CHRISTIAN  NAME.  123 

Birailar  impoi-t  are  often  met  with;  as,  "disciples,"  "believers,"  "breth- 
ren," "  saints,"  "  the  elect,"  &c. ;  and,  being  applied  indiscriminately  to  all 
who  confessed  the  name  of  Christ,  though  they  differed  in  moral  deportment 
and  in  some  doctrinal  points,  must  have  been  employed  to  denote  rather 
their  obligation  to  be  holy  in  their  lives,  and  faithful  to  their  professions, 
tlian  to  hidicate  the  purity  and  spirituality  of  their  characters,  or  the 
orthodoxy  of  their  opinions.  As  soon  as  a  Jew  or  a  Heathen  acknowledged 
by  baptism  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah  or  the  Son  of  God,  he  was  admitted 
amongst  the  band  of  disciples  or  saints,  without  any  questions  being  asked 
as  to  the  precise  nature  of  his  belief;  and,  in  correspondence  with  this  prac- 
tice among  the  apostles,  the  Unitarian  Locke  and  the  Trinitarian  Whately 
would  regard  as  Christians  all  who  openly  acknowledge  the  divine  authority 
of  Jesus. 

5.  It  is  obvious  that  the  use  of  the  term  "  Christian,"  in  the  sense  just 
mentioned,  —  namely,  in  its  application  to  all  professing  churches  and 
members  of  Christ,  —  would  preclude  much  of  that  curious  cavilling  as  to 
the  belief  of  our  fellow-men,  and  that  unjustifiable  prying  into  the  depths 
of  their  hearts,  which  have  always  marked  the  conduct  and  demeanor  of 
sectarians.  But  there  is  another  and  a  more  accurate  use  of  the  tenn,  when 
it  is  emploj'ed  to  indicate  one  who  not  only  admits  the  supernatural  and 
miraculous  origin  of  Christianity,  but  who  manifests  in  his  conversation 
and  life  the  moral  dispositions  which  Jesus  prescribed  and  exemplified. 
If  he  may  be  called  a  Christian  who  publicly  acknowledges  his  belief  in 
Christ  and  his  obligation  to  live  in  confoi-mitj-  with  that  profession,  surely 
the  man  who  not  only  "  names  the  name  of  Christ,"  but  who  "  departs  from 
iniquity,"  — who  not  only  calls  him  "  Lord  and  Master,"  but,  with  a  heart 
full  of  love  and  reverence  towards  him,  does  what  the  great  Messenger  of 
Heaven  commanded,  is  a  disciple  of  Christ,  a  true  Christian.  All  such 
men,  whatever  may  be  the  complexion  of  their  creed,  are  the  real  members 
of  Christ's  church.  They  are  the  saints  of  the  earth,  —  the  elect  of  God, 
for  whom  Jesus  has  gone  to  prepare  a  place  in  the  mansions  of  his  Father. 
Both  this  and  the  preceding  sense  of  the  teiTn  "  Christian"  is  countenanced 
by  some  of  the  able  and  catholic  writers  from  whom  we  have  quoted;  and 
we  cannot  doubt,  that,  despite  of  sectarian  influences,  many  will  be  glad  to 
do  the  same  justice  to  those  who,  "  after  the  way  which  is  called  heresy, 
worship  the  God  of  their  fathers." 

6.  There  is  still  another  sense  in  which  the  term  "  Christian  "  may,  wa 
think,  be  used;  but  its  correctness  will  probably  be  denied  by  almost  all 
members  of  orthodox  churches,  and  be  acknowledged  by  only  a  few 
Unitarians.  We  mean  that  sense  in  which  the  word  is  employed  to  repre- 
sent a  man  who,  whether  he  holds  or  does  not  hold  Christianity  to  be  a 
supernatural  revelation,  professes  to  regard  Jesus  Christ  as  pre-eminently 
his  Master  and  Teacher  in  all  matters  of  religion,  and  who  shows  by  his 
discourse  and  his  actions,  that  he  has  imbibed  the  spirit  of  the  best  and 
wisest  One  amongst  the  good  and  the  wise  of  all  n.ations  and  all  times.  We 
do  not  sympathize  with  the  views  of  those  who  would  banish  the  miraculous 


124  UNITARIANS  ENTITLED  TO   THE  CHRISTIAN  NAME. 

from  Christ  and  Christianity,  and  place  Jesus  merely  ainonpr,  or  even  at  the 
head  of,  the  class  of  philosophers  and  refonners  who  have  been  raised  up  by 
Providence  to  enlighten  or  instruct  the  race.  We  believe,  that,  in  his  oflRces 
and  his  character,  he  stands  immeasurably  above  the  Socrates,  the  Platos, 
and  the  Zoroasters,  good  and  gi-eat  as  they  may  have  been ;  and  that  ha 
received  from  the  Being  who  sent  him  influences  of  a  special  kind  to 
become  —  what  no  other  has  shown  that  he  could  become  —  the  Redeemer 
of  the  world.  Were  we  to  reject  the  peculiarly  divine  element  of  the 
Gospels,  we  fear  that  we  should  be  unable  to  admit  the  surpassing  moral 
beauty  and  the  godlike  majesty  of  Christ's  character,  bound  up  as  it  seems 
to  be  indissolubly  with  the  truthfulness  of  the  wondrous  tale;  and  should 
be  ready  to  exclaim,  "  They  have  taken  away  my  Lord,  and  I  know  not 
where  they  have  laid  him."  We  should  feel  that  the  doubts  and  the  specu- 
lations which  had  shaken  our  faith  in  the  unmeasured  inspiration  of  Christ 
had  taken  away  the  grounds  for  belief  in  his  pre-eminent  graces,  —  had 
taken  away  the  Logos  of  God  from  the  soul  of  the  great  Nazarene,  — 
had  taken  away  all  those  attributes  which  made  Jesus  at  once  tlie  Repre- 
sentative, the  Image,  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  and  the  type  of  a  divine  or 
perfected  humanity,  —  had  taken  away  that  depth  of  affection  which  wept 
at  the  tomb  of  Lazarus,  and  gave  back  a  living  brother  to  the  arms  of  affec- 
tionate sisters, —  taken  away  that  voice  of  wisdom,  which,  flowing  from  the 
bosom  of  the  infinite  Father,  through  the  Son  of  his  love,  spoke  of  life  and 
immortality  in  tones  of  authority  unused  by  Hebrew  seer  or  Grecian  sage, 
—  taken  away  all  the  power  and  glory  of  that  resurrection  which  was  the 
pledge  of  Christ's  truth,  the  reward  of  his  sacrificing  love,  and  the  gate 
of  his  entrance  to  the  realms  of  heaven,  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  where  he 
still  acts  on  man's  behalf,  still  implores  a  Father's  mercy  on  an  erring  and 
a  sinful  world ;  —  that  these  doubts  and  speculations  had  taken  away  the 
substance  of  our  Lord,  and  changed  it  into  a  shadow;  that  they  had  anato- 
mized the  breathing  reality  of  Jesus,  and  converted  it  into  a  myth. 

But  we  speak  of  our  oivn  feelings  and  convictions,  not  of  those  expo 
rienced  by  other  minds.  If,  without  his  miracles,  men  can  believe  in  Christ, 
let  us  rejoice;  if,  unable  to  recognize  a  voice  from  heaven  at  the  baptism  of 
Jesus,  or  to  see  a  divine  arm  open  his  tomb  and  bring  him  forth,  they  can, 
notwithstanding,  regard  him  as  their  Lord  and  Master,  let  us  not  refuse 
them  his  blessed  name;  if,  while  bigots  frown  and  even  the  charitable  shake 
their  iieads,  the  Rationalist  sincerely  obeys  the  behests  of  the  Son  of  Mary, 
though  he  may  doubt  his  claitns  as  the  divinely  inspired  Messiah,  let  us  not 
forbid  him  "  because  he  followeth  not  us,"  but  be  thankful  for  what  faith  he 
fias,  and,  in  a  spirit  of  Christian  kindness  and  unfeigned  affection,  try  to  win 
him  to  the  blessing  pronounced  on  the  confession,  "  TUou  ai-t  Jesus,  the 
Son  of  God." 


125 


CHAPTER  11. 

THE  PRECIOUSNESS  OF  THEOLOGICAL  TRUTH,  AND  THE 
UNRESTRICTED  MEANS  OF  ACQUIRING  IT. 


SECT.  I.  —  THE    IMPORTANCE    OF    RIGHT  CONCEPTIONS  OF  RELIGION. 

Loving  truth 
And  wisdom  for  their  own  divinest  selves. 

P.  J.  Bailet. 

In  the  preceding  chapter,  it  was  our  aim  to  show,  by  the  assistance  of  emi- 
nent writers  in  the  ranks  of  the  Orthodox,  that  the  spirit  which  has  been  so 
often  manifested  by  the  professed  disciples  of  Jesus  towards  one  another, — 
the  spirit  of  narrowness,  of  denunciation,  and  of  persecution,  —  is  wholly 
alien  to  the  genius  and  the  objects  of  Christianity;  that,  however  it  may 
disguise  itself,  whether  in  the  garb  of  superior  sanctity,  of  soundness  of 
faith,  or  of  a  zeal  for  the  cause  of  Heaven,  this  rampant  spirit  is  at  war 
with  God's  paternal  character,  with  Christ's  merciful  message,  and  with 
man's  best  and  noblest  interests.  We  trust,  however,  that  the  sentiments 
contained  in  that  chapter,  while  tending  to  deepen  in  the  soul  of  the  reader 
a  love  for  his  brethren  of  all  theological  denominations,  may  not  have  a 
deadening  effect  on  his  appreciation  of  the  value  of  truth,  as  if  it  were  of  no 
importance  whether  a  man's  conceptions  of  religion  be  correct  or  otherwise. 
It  certainly  was  not  the  intention  of  these  writers  to  foster  any  such  indif- 
ference in  the  minds  of  others;  for  many  of  them  have  been  remarkable 
for  their  love  of  knowledge,  and  for  their  zeal  in  diffusing  what  they  be- 
lieved to  be  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  Indeed,  there  is,  and  can  be,  no 
dissonance  between  the  broadest  views  of  the  rights  of  our  brethren  in 
Christ,  and  the  most  devoted  reverence  for  truth;  though  the  cant  of  libe- 
rality may  sometimes  be  heard  from  the  lips  of  men  who  "  care  for  none  of 
these  things;"  who  pay  as  little  respect  to  those  great  principles  of  religion 
which  are  acknowledged  by  all  professing  Christians,  as  to  the  forms  and 
dogmas  which  separate  them  into  classes  and  parties.  So  far  from  there 
being  any  opposition  between  catholicity  of  feeling  and  a  desire  to  possess 
and  to  spread  right  apprehensions  of  the  nature  of  Christianity,  that  the 
most  earnest  inquirers  after  truth  are  of  all  men  found  to  be  the  least  acri 
monious  towards  those  who  difl'er  from  them,  because,  in  their  investigations, 
they  have  had  most  need  to  practise  such  virtues  as  are  conducive  to  cha- 
ritable  dispositions;    and   because,  from  their  observation  and  their  own 

!!• 


126  IMPORTANCE  OF  JUST  VIEWS  OF   RELIGION. 

experience,  they  are  the  best  cognizant  of  tlio,  various  influences  which  teiid 
inevitably  to  the  production  of  variety  of  opinion.  So  also  tlie  true  lover  of 
his  kind,  the  follower  of  peace,  the  friend  of  universal  religious  freedom,  the 
opposer  of  all  kinds  of  persecution,  the  member  of  Christ's  catholic  church, 
—  who  recognizes  the  disciples  of  Christ  in  the  sincere,  the  good,  and 
the  humble-minded  of  all  denominations,  —  will,  if  he  be  consistent  with  the 
principles  from  which  his  charity  flows  and  takes  its  power,  embrace  every 
proper  means  for  the  difi'usion  of  sentiments  calculated  to  produce  harmony 
and  love  among  the  various  members  of  society.  Knowing  that  the  harsh 
thoughts,  the  bad  tempers,  and  the  unfeeling  and  condemnatory  judgments 
of  Christians,  so  called,  have  originated  in  their  ignorance  of  the  benign 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  or  rather  in  their  forgetfulness  of  these  amid  their 
vain  wranglings  about  matters  which  they  do  not  understand  or  which 
cannot  be  understood,  he  will  be  led  to  disseminate  what  he  regards  as 
evangelical  truth;  he  will  recommend,  in  his  conversation  and  his  life,  if  he 
cannot  by  the  aid  of  the  pulpit  or  the  press,  those  principles  which  constitute 
the  chief  elements  of  Christianity, —  the  fatherhood  of  God,  and  the  fraternity 
of  man;  the  intrinsic  worth  of  a  soul  made  in  the  image  of  its  Creator;  the 
ruin  effected  in  its  constitution  by  the  ravages  of  sin;  the  possibility  of  its 
recovery  to  a  state  of  holiness,  and  of  reconciliation  to  a  Father's  favor, 
through  the  at-one-ment  which  he  who  labored  and  died  for  the  good  of  all, 
offers  to  those  who,  truly  repentant,  strive,  with  the  energy  of  renewed  and 
devoted  wills,  to  become  Christ-like  in  their  submission  to  God;  Christ-like 
in  the  piety,  the  purity,  the  benevolence,  of  their  hearts  and  lives. 


No  sersnce  is  more  acceptiible  to  God,  and  no  conduct  can  be  more 
jDious  or  i^raisewortliy,  than  to  aim  at  truth,  and  to  acquire  its  trans- 
forming influence ;  and,  being  once  attempted,  the  kbor  Avill  become 
80  delightful  that  it  will  never  be  relinquished.  The  knowledge  of  any 
truth  is  pleasant ;  but  the  knowledge  of  Christian  truth  is  singuLirly 
beneficial.  —  Melancthon;  in  Cox's  Life  of  Melandhon,  p.  92. 

Abhor  all  docti-ines  which  likspheme  or  dishonor  the  name  of  God, 
and  would  blemish  and  hide  the  glory  of  his  majesty.  I  give  \ou  this 
rule  for  your  own  preservation,  and  not  in  imitiition  of  uncharitible 
fircl)rands  and  dividers  of  the  church,  to  exercise  your  pride  and 
imperious  humor,  in  condemning  all  men  to  whose  opinions  you  c-an 
maliciously  affix  a  blasphemous  consequence,  which  either  followeth 
but  in  your  own  imagination,  or  is  not  acknowledged,  bat  hated,  by 
those  on  whom  you  do  affix  it  Let  it  suffice  you  to  detest  false 
doctrines,  without  detesting  the  persons  that  you  imagine  guilty  of 
them,  who  jjrofess  to  l)eliove  the  contniry  truth  as  steadfastly  as  you 
yourselves.  —  ]Iichahi)  Baxti:u  :  Christian  Directory ;  in  Practical 
IVorka,  vol.  ii.  p.  437. 


IMPORTANCE  OF  JUST   VIEW'S  OF  RELIGION.  127 

To  have  right  apprehensions  of  God  is  the  great  foundation  of  all 
religion ;  for,  according  as  men's  notions  of  God  are,  such  ■will  their 
religion  be.  If  men  have  gross  and  flxlse  conceptions  of  God,  their  reli- 
gion will  be  absiu-d  and  superstitious.  If  men  fancy  God  to  be  an 
ill-natured  Being,  armed  with  infinite  power,  —  one  that  delights  in  the 
misery  and  ruin  of  his  creatures,  and  is  ready  to  take  all  advantages 
against  them,  —  they  may  fear  him,  but  they  will  hate  him ;  and  they 
will  be  apt  to  be  such  towards  one  another  as  they  fancy  God  to  be 
towards  them ;  for  all  reHgion  doth  naturally  incline  men  to  imitate 
him  whom  they  worship.  —  Archbishop  Tillotson  :  Sermon  5 ;  in 
Works,  vol.  i.  p.  101. 

Truth  is  in  all  things  so  worthy  and  desirable,  that  a  generous  spirit 
will  think  he  can  never  prize  it  enough.  We  see  the  greatest  men 
have  made  it  the  whole  busmess  of  their  Uves  to  pursue  it  even  in  the 
smallest  instances,  and  have  thought  their  labors  wortliily  rewarded,  if, 
with  the  greatest  application,  and  it  may  be  with  some  danger  and  loss 
too,  they  have  but  been  able  to  find  it  out  at  the  last.  —  Archbishop 
Wake  :  Sermons  and  Discourses,  p.  235. 

To  ascertain  the  character  of  the  Supreme  Author  of  all  things  ;  to 
know,  as  far  as  we  are  capable  of  comprehending  such  a  subject,  what 
is  his  moral  disposition,  what  the  situation  we  stand  in  towards  him, 
and  the  principles  by  which  he  conducts  his  administration,  —  will  be 
allowed  by  every  considerate  person  to  be  of  the  highest  consequence. 
Compared  to  this,  all  other  speculations  or  inquiries  sink  into  insig- 
nificance, because  every  event  that  can  befall  us  is  in  his  hands,  and  by 
his  sentence  our  final  condition  must  be  fixed.  To  regard  such  an 
inquiry  with  indifference  is  the  mark,  not  of  a  noble  but  of  an  abject 
mind,  which,  immersed  in  sensuality  or  amused  with  trifles,  deems 

itself  unworthy  of  eternal  life As  it  [morality]  is  the  genuine 

frui*  of  just  and  affecting  ^^ews  of  divine  truth,  you  will  never  sever 
it  from  its  parent  stock,  nor  indulge  the  fruitless  hope  of  leading  men 
to  hoUness,  without  strongly  imbuing  them  with  the  rpirit  of  the 
gospel.  Truth  and  holiness  are  in  the  Christian  system  so  intimately 
allied,  that  the  warm  and  faitliful  inculcation  of  the  one  lays  the  only 

foundation  for  the  other Let  us  cultivate  the  most  cordial 

esteem  for  all  that  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity.  Let  us 
anxiously  guard  against  that  asperity  and  contempt  which  have  too 
often  mingled  with  theological  debates ;  but  let  us  aim,  at  the  same 
time,  to  acquire  and  retain  the  most  accurate  conceptions  of  religious 
truth.      Every  improvement  in    the   knowledge  of  Christ   ard  the 


128  IMPORTANCE  OF  JUST  VIEWS  OP  EELIQION. 

mysteries  of  the  gospel  ■will  abundantly  compensate  for  the  labor  and 
attention  necessary  to  its  attainment.  —  lloBERT  Hall  :  J  forks,  voL  i. 
pp.  121-2,  146;  vol.  ii.  p.  448. 

Almost  all  men  are  forced  to  feel  and  acknowledge,  that  we  our- 
selves, and  the  whole  world  we  see  about  us,  depend  on  some 
superhuman  Cause  or  Power  which  has  a  control  over  us,  and  from 
which  our  happiness  or  misery  comes.  Now,  the  notions  men  form 
of  such  superhuman  powers,  the  feelings  they  entertain  towards  them, 
and  the  course  of  behavior  sprmging  from  such  notions  and  feelings,  — 
these  are  wkit  we  call  religion ;  the  superhuman  powers,  real  or  ima- 
ginarv,  being  aiUed  the  olyects  of  religion.  You  will  readily  j^erceive, 
then,  that  men's  religions  will  be  ditferent,  according  as  the  objects  of 
their  religion  are  ditierent.  J£  a  man  worships  a  Being  whom  he 
thinks  good,  but  not  all-knowing,  he  will  often  be  satisfied  with  trying 
to  appear  good,  without  becoming  so.  If  he  worships  one  whom  he 
thinks  spiteful,  he  will  try  to  appease  his  malice  by  doing  injury  and 
inflicting  pain  on  himself  and  others.  If  he  worships  one  whom  he 
does  not  think  all-powerful,  he  will  he  apt  sometimes  to  neglect  liis 
service  for  that  of  some  other  power,  if  there  seem  to  be  a  ciiance  of 
gaining  any  thing  by  the  change.  If  a  man  thinks  his  deity  vain,  h« 
will  try  to  flitter  him ;  if  weakly  compassionate,  to  move  his  pity  by 
doleful  Limentations  and  compLiints.  In  short,  as  the  beha\-ior  of  a 
femily  will  be  influenced  by  the  character  of  the  master  of  the  house, 
so  the  religion  of  men  will  be  influenced  by  the  character  which  they 
suppose  to  be  that  of  the  Being  whom  they  worship.  —  ^'VlicilBisiiop 
WUATELY:  Cautions  for  the  Times,  ])p.  70-1. 

One  great  end  of  a  true  education  is  to  discipHne  the  mind  lor  the 
candid  and  unprejudiced  pursuit  of  truth.  It  teaches  the  honest 
Christian  to  renounce  all  pious  fraud,  and  not  to  think  that  it  can  ever 
be  for  God's  glory  that  we  should  lie  for  him.  Moreover,  it  teaches 
that  it  is  for  tlie  interest  of  all  to  know  the  truth,  and  that  it  is  a  duty 
to  be  faithful  to  it  at  any  sacrifice  of  rei)ut;itiou  or  ])roperty,  or  personal 
ease  and  enjoyment.  It  also  recogni/es  the  truth  which  is  Uuiglit 
by  the  structure  of  the  human  mind,  by  the  material  universe,  and  by 
providence,  as  a  part  of  the  revelation  which  God  has  made  to  man  as 
really  as  the  Bible,  and  does  not  feel  at  liberty  to  supjn-ess  any  truth 
taught  by  God.  —  Dr.  Edward  BmxiiKR :  Conflict  of  Jf^es,  ]).  360. 

The  searcli  after  and  discovery  of  truth  is  one  of  the  secrets  of 
exiilted  hajjpiness ;  and  therefore  shall  we  always  find  that  those  who 
are  in  reality  the  wisest  and  best  are  most  impelled   to  comnuuiiciitt 


IMPORTANCE  OF  JUST  VIEW'S  OF  RELIGION.  129 

their  knowledge  to  the  widest  ranks Di\ine   truth   is   the 

primary  want  of  the  human  soul,  the  ground  of  its  own  emancipation, 
and  the  means  of  its  triumph  over  all  outward  foes.  The  full  ex- 
pansion and  complete  donation  of  this  highest  gift  God  has  reserved 
to  the  ultimate  energies  of  Christian  doctrine  on  all  mankind.  All 
virtue  is  the  inimitable  fruit  of  truth ;  and  the  gospel  is  worthy  of 
all  acce])tation,  because  the  excellence  it  produces  is  the  most  vera- 
cious and  enduring This  omnipotence   and   ineffable   glory 

of  tiTith  is  vouchsafed  to  man  only  for  the  purpose  of  promoting 
practical  godliness.  All  its  emanations  are  infinitely  superior  to  the 
inertness  of  mere  dogmas,  since  they  are  designed  to  make  man  both 
poUtically  energetic  and  morally  regenerative.  ...  It  is  truth  to  be 
proclaimed,  not  simply  as  theological  doctrine,  but  a  mighty  and  sa\'ing 
revelation,  a  celestial  fact  free  for  all,  which  ought  to  interfuse  every 
thought  we  think,  adorn  every  deed  we  do,  and  be  allowed  unobstruct- 
edly  to  grow,  less  as  a  mere  luxury  of  the  intellect  than  the  mightiest 
passion  of  the  heart.  —  E.  L.  Magoon  :  Republican  Christianity, 
pp.  320,  353,  366. 

There  is  another  reason  why  we  should  not  voluntarily  suffer  any 
form  of  error  to  attach  itself  to  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  and  go 
forth  under  their  sanction,  to  which  I  would  briefly  allude.  However 
harmless,  or  beneficial  even,  such  error  may  for  a  time  appear,  it  is 
sure  in  the  end  to  work  mischief.  Like  the  little  book  of  the  angel 
in  the  Apocalypse,  though  sweet  in  the  mouth,  it  will  make  the  belly 
bitter.  Even  though  its  direct  influence  on  the  heart  and  the  life  be 
not  prejudicial,  it  will  prove  an  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  general 
reception  of  the  doctrine  with  which  it  is  associated.  To  the  sincere 
and,earnest  inquirer  after  truth,  it  becomes  a  stumbling-block ;  while,  to 
the  enemies  of  our  holy  religion,  it  serves  as  a  mark  for  the  direction 
of  their  shafts.  The  Christian  minister,  who,  by  his  eloquence  and 
fervid  zeal,  spreads  erroneous  doctrines  through  the  churches,  does 
more  to  harm  Christianity  than  a  hundred  infidels.  Besides  furnishing 
its  adversaries  with  their  most  potent  weapons  against  it,  he  is  himself 
scattering  broadcast  the  seeds  from  which  scepticism  and  unbelief  will, 

sooner  or  later,  spring  up I  think  it  not  difficult  to  see  how 

generally  received  error,  here,  may  exert  an  influence  upon  thoughtful 
minds  greatly  to  be  deprecated.  Let  us  suppose  a  man  whose  ideas 
of  the  character  and  government  of  God  have  been  formed  chiefly  from 
the  observation  of  his  works.  .  .  .  Tell  him  that  the  object  of  the 
Di\-ine  Being,  in  creating  the  world,  was  the  illustration  of  his  own 


100  IMPORTANCE  OF  JUST   VIEUS  OF   RELIGION. 

attributes,  and  not  the  good  of  his  creatures ;  that  he  fomis  and  malves 
use  of  them  in  whatever  way  may  best  subserve  that  end,  wholly 
ignoring  any  cbim  which  they  might  be  supposed  to  have  u])on  him 
as  their  Creator,  And,  to  complete  and  give  consistency  to  this  view 
of  the  divine  character  and  government,  add  a  discourse  on  the  glory  of 
God,  and  the  joy  of  his  saints  in  the  sufferings  of  the  finally  lost,  — 
sufferings  which  he  had  predetermined,  and  rendered  esaii)e  from 
impossible.  Let  all  this,  I  say,  be  told  to  a  man  such  as  I  have  suj)- 
posed,  and  what  effect  would  it  be  likely  to  have  on  him?  If  he 
received  it  as  the  simple  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  might  it  not  lead 
him  to  question  their  authority  ?  Would  it  be  strange  if  his  con- 
fidence in  them,  as  a  revelation  from  Heaven,  should  be  shaken  by 
it  ?  —  Prof.  George  I.  Ciiace,  LL.D. :  The  Relation  of  Divine 
Providence  to  Physical  Laivs,  pp.  51,  53,  55. 

It  is  beyond  dispute,  we  suppose,  that  the  opinions  of  men  lie  at 
the  root  of  their  characters.  All  beliefs,  —  living  beliefs,  of  course, 
we  mean,  —  beliefs  that  are  honestly  and  heartily  held,  that  are  more 
than  hypotheses  and  speculations  and  passive  consents,  —  work  and 
are  productive.  Their  sap  circulates  in  every  part  of  the  man,  and  puts 
forth  the  leaves  and  flowers  of  correspondent  sentiments  and  habits. 
Hence  there  is  no  forfn  of  doctrine  that  has  not  its  own  style  of  reli- 
gion,—  a  style  that  is  not  arliitrary  or  fortuitous,  but  the  genuine 
offspring  of  its  source,  and  showing  its  parenfcige  in  its  qualities.  A 
creed  is  a  die ;  and  living  men  are  the  coinage,  and  show,  in  the  image 
and  superscription  they  bear,  the  impress  of  its  face.  If  it  does  not 
impress  itself,  and  multijily  Uving  copies  in  the  sphere  it  fills,  it  is 
dead  :  it  is  onlj-  so  many  words,  not  alive  by  being  taken  up  into  a 
living  human  spirit,  and  held  by  its  grasp  into  such  close  contact  with 
its  substance  as  to  have  opportunity  to  stamp  its  mark  upon  the 
yielding  mass.  The  mixed  multitude  tlmt  hang  upon  the  skirts  of 
any  form  of  doctrine,  and  are  content  to  wear  its  name  and  livery,  are 
not  believers.  The  probabilit)-  is  that  they  do  not  know  what  it  is 
intellectually ;  and,  if  they  do,  they  keep  it  too  far  from  them  to  feel 
its  power.  But  beliefs,  real,  genuine,  sincere  beUcfs,  are  powerful 
The  human  soul  is  in  their  hands  like  wax ;  and  the  life,  in  its  prev-ail- 
ing  sentiments  and  ways,  is  the  seal  that  testifies  at  once  the  pressure 
and  the  conformation.  False  beliefs  will  make  false  hvcs,  some  pretence 
of  goodness,  which  is  not  a  real  goodness,  but  a  fault  sanctified  by 
the  authority  of  religion.  —  Church  Review  for  April,  1854;  vt)L  vii 
p.  73. 


RIGHT  AND  DUTY   OF   FREE  INQUIEY.  131 


SECT.  It.  —  THE   RIGHT  AND   DUTY  OF   FREE  INQUIRE. 

The  inquiry  of  truth  is  the  sovereign  good  of  human  nature.  —  Lord  Bacon. 
Etudy  earnestly ;  learn  willingly ;  resist  no  light ;  neglect  no  truth.  —  Rich.  Baxt£B 

[John  Robinson]  charged  us,  before  God  and  his  blessed  angels, 
to  follow  him  no  further  than  he  followed  Christ ;  and,  if  God  should 
reveal  any  tiling  to  us  by  any  other  instrument  of  his,  to  be  as  ready 
to  receive  it  as  ever  we  were  to  receive  any  truth  by  his  ministry ;  for 
he  was  very  confident  the  Lord  had  more  truth  and  light  yet  to  break 
forth  out  of  his  holy  word.  He  took  occasion  also  miserably  to 
bewail  the  stiite  and  condition  of  the  reformed  churches,  who  were 
come  to  a  period  in  religion,  and  would  go  no  further  than  the  instru- 
ments of  their  Reformation.  As,  for  example,  the  Lutherans :  they 
3ould  not  be  drawn  to  go  beyond  what  Luther  saw ;  for  wliatever  part 
Df  God's  will  he  had  further  imparted  and  revealed  to  Calvin,  they 
will  rather  die  than  embrace  it.  And  so  also,  saith  he,  you  see  the 
Cahinists :  they  stick  where  he  left  them,  —  a  misery  much  to  be 
lamented ;  for  though  they  were  precious  shining  hghts  in  their  times, 
yet  God  had  not  revealed  his  whole  will  to  them ;  and  were  they  now 
living,  saith  he,  they  would  be  as  ready  and  willing  to  embrace  further 
light  as  that  they  had  received.  Here  also  he  put  us  in  mind  of  our 
church  covenant,  at  least  that  part  of  it  whereby  we  promise  and 
covenant  with  God,  and  one  \vith  another,  to  receive  whatsoever  light 
or  truth  shall  be  made  known  to  us  from  his  written  word ;  but  withal 
exhorted  us  to  take  heed  what  we  received  for  truth,  and  well  to 
examine  and  compare  it  and  weigh  it  with  other  Scriptures  of  truth 
before  we  received  it.  For,  saith  he,  it  is  not  possible  the  Christian 
world  should  come  so  lately  out  of  such  thick  antichristian  darkness, 
and  that  full  perfection  of  knowledge  should  break  forth  at  once.  - 
Edward  Winslow  :  Brief  JVajration,  Lond.  1646 ;  mi  Young's 
Chronicles  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers,  pp.  396-7. 

These  noble  sentiments  are  taken  from  a  report  of  the  farewell  address 
made  by  John  Robinson,  in  the  year  1620,  to  those  members  of  his  church 
who  were  about  to  depart  from  Holland  for  the  purpose  of  seeking  a  home 
in  the  wildernesses  of  the  New  World,  where  they  might  enjoy  the  privi- 
leges of  religious  freedom.  The  narrator,  Governor  Winslow,  was  preseat 
•t  the  delivery  of  the  discourse. 


132  RIGHT   AND  DUTY   OF   FREE   INQUIRY. 

Let  no  man,  upon  a  weak  conceit  of  sobriety,  or  an  ill-apjiliod 
moderation,  think  or  maintain,  that  a  man  can  search  too  for,  or  be 
too  well  studied  in  the  book  of  God's  word  or  in  the  book  of  God's 
works,  —  divinity  or  philosophy ;  but  rather  let  men  endeavor  an 
endless  progress  or  proficience  in  both.  Only  let  men  bewai'e,  that 
they  apj)ly  both  to  charity,  and  not  to  swelHng ;  to  use,  and  not  to 
ostentation ;  and,  again,  that  they  do  not  unwisely  mingle  or  confound 
these  learnings  together.  —  Lord  Bacon  :  Advancement  of  Learning, 
book  i. ;  in  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  164. 

The  old  sceptics  that  never  would  profess  that  they  had  found  a 
truth,  yet  showed  the  best  way  to  search  for  any,  when  they  doubted 
as  well  of  what  those  of  the  dogmatical  sects  too  credulously  received 
for  infallible  principles,  as  they  did  of  the  newest  conclusions.  They 
were  indeed,  questionless,  too  nice,  and  deceived  themselves  with  the 
nirableness  of  their  owii  sophisms,  that  permitted  no  kind  of  esta- 
blished truth.  But,  plivinly,  he  that  avoids  their  disputing  levity,  yet, 
being  able,  takes  to  himself  their  Hberty  of  inquuy,  is  in  the  only  way 
that  in  all  kinds  of  studies  leads  and  lies  open  even  to  the  sanctiuiry 
of  truth ;  while  others,  that  are  servile  to  common  opinion  and  ^■^llgdr 
sujjpositions,  can  rarely  hope  to  be  admitted  nearer  thiin  into  tlie  base 
court  of  her  temple,  which  too  speciously  often  counterfeits  her  mmost 
sanctuary.  —  John  Selden  :  History  of  Tithes. 

If  you  must  never  change  your  first  opinions  or  apprehensions,  how 
will  you  grow  in  understiinding  ?  Will  you  be  no  wiser  at  age  than 
you  were  at  childhood,  and  after  long  study  and  experience  than  you 
were  before  ?  Nature  and  grace  do  tend  to  increase.  Lidced,  if 
you  should  be  never  so  peremptory  in  your  opuiions,  you  cannot 
resolve  to  hold  them  to  the  end;  for  light  is  powerful,  and  may 
change  you,  whether  you  will  or  no :  you  cannot  tell  wliat  that  light 
will  do,  which  you  never  saw.  But  prejudice  will  make  you  re.»Ist  the 
light,  and  make  it  harder  for  you  to  understiuid.  I  speak  tliis  upon 
much  experience  and  observation.  Our  first,  unripe  aj)prchcnsions 
of  things  will  certxiihly  be  greatly  clianged,  if  we  are  studious,  and  of 
improved  understandings.  .  .  .  For  my  owii  part,  my  judgment  is 
altered  from  many  of  my  youthful,  confident  apprehensions;  and, 
wliere  it  holdeth  the  same  conclusion,  it  rejectcth  al)undancc  of  the 
arguments,  as  vain,  which  once  it  rested  in.  And  wlicre  I  keep  to 
the  same  conclusions  and  arguments,  my  apprehension  of  them  is 
not  the  same,  but  I  see  more  satisfying  light  in  many  things  which  1 
took  but  upon  trust  before.     And  if  I  had  resolved  to  hold  to  all  my 


KIGUT   AND  DUTY   OF   FREE   INQUIRY.  133 

first  opinions,  Iniust  have  forborne  most  of  my  studies,  and  lost  much 
trutli,  which  I  have  discovered,  and  not  made  that  my  o^^Tl  which  1 

did  hold ;  and  I  must  have  resolved  to  live  and  die  a  child 

Ignorance,  and  ungrounded  or  ill-groimded  persuasions  in  matters 
of  religion,  are  the  cause  that  abundance  of  people  delude  themselves 
with  the  empty  name  and  dead  profession  of  a  faith  and  religion  which 
they  were  never  indeed  possessed  of.  I  know  there  are  low  degrees 
of  knowledge,  comparatively,  in  many  that  are  true  believers ;  and  that 
there  may  be  much  love  and  holiness  where  knowledge  is  very  small 
or  narrow  as  to  the  objective  extent  of  it;  and  that  there  is  a  know- 
ledge that  puffeth  up,  while  charity  edifieth ;  and  that,  in  many  that 
have  the  narrower  knowledge,  there  may  be  the  fastest  faith  and 
adherence  to  the  truth,  which  will  conquer  in  the  time  of  trial.  But 
yet  I  must  tell  you,  that  the  religion  which  you  profess  is  not  indeed 
your  OAvn  religion,  if  you  know  not  what  it  is,  and  know  not  in  some 
measure  the  true  gi-ounds  and  reasons  why  you  should  be  of  that 
religion.  K  you  have  only  learned  to  say  your  creed,  or  repeat  the 
words  of  Christian  doctrine,  while  you  do  not  truly  imderstand 
the  sense;  or  if  you  have  no  better  reasons  why  you  profess  the 
Christian  faith  than  the  custom  of  the  country,  or  the  command  of 
piinces  or  governors,  or  the  opinion  of  your  teachers,  or  the  example 
of  your  parents,  friends,  or  neighbors,  —  you  are  not  Christians  in- 
deed. You  have  a  human  belief  or  opinion,  which  objectively  is 
true ;  but,  subjectively  in  yourselves,  you  have  no  true,  divine  belief.  — 
RiCUARD  B.\XTER :  Christian  Directory ;  in  Practical  Works,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  129,  170. 

Freedom  of  inquii-y  is  equally  open  to  you  and  to  myself:  it  is 
equally  laudable  in  us,  when  conducted  with  impartiality  and  decorum ; 
and  it  must  equally  tend  to  the  enlargement  of  knowledge  and  the 
improvement  of  virtue,  while  our  sincerity  does  not  betray  us  into 
precipitiition,  and  wliile  our  zeal  does  not  stifle  within  us  the  amiable 
and  salutary  sentiments  of  mutual  forbearance.  Upon  the  points  in 
which  we  dissent  from  each  other,  arguments  will  always  secure  the 
attention  of   the  wise  and  good ;    whereas  invective  must  disgrace 

the  cause  which  we  may  respectively  wish  to  support 

Freedom  of  inquiry  in  private  persons,  when  far  extended,  and  quite 
unshackled  by  artificial  restraints,  is  favorable  to  the  discover}'  of  truth, 
and,  through  the  progressive  influence  of  truth  upon  practice,  is  even- 
tually conducive  to  the  best  interests  of  society.  —  Dr.  Samuel  Parr  : 
Works,  voL  iii.  pp.  301-2;  and  vol.  iv.  pp.  541-2. 

13 


134  RIOIIT   AND  DUTY   OF   FREE  INQUIRY. 

The  only  means  by  which  religious  knowledge  can  be  adranced  is 
freedom  of  inquiry.  An  opinion  is  not  therefore  false  beciuse  it  con- 
tradicts received  notions ;  but,  whether  tine  or  false,  let  it  be  submitted 
to  a  fair  examination.  Truth  must,  in  the  end,  be  a  gainer  by  it,  and 
ajjpear  with  the  greater  e\-idence.  —  Bishop  Lo^\"^H  :  Visitation  Ser. 

When  the  riglit  of  unlimited  inquiry  is  exerted,  the  human  facul- 
ties Nnll  be  upon  the  advance :  where  it  is  reUnquished,  they  will  be 
of  necessity  at  a  stand,  and  will  probably  decline.  —  Robert  Hall  : 
Apolog}!  for  the  Freedom  of  Uie  Press ;  in  IVorks,  voL  ii.  p.  52. 

Truth  is  every  man's  concernment,  every  man's  right,  and  every 
man's  most  necessary  possession.  ...  If  every  man  be  obUged,  as  he 
will  answer  it  to  God,  to  possess  himself  of  truth,  he  must  be  free ;  — 
free  not  only  to  tliiiik,  but  to  spe;ik ;  free  to  move ;  free  to  go  in 
quest  of  truth ;  free  to  bring  it  home ;  free  to  confer  witli  his  fellows 
concerning  it ;  and  free  to  impart  what  he  has  acquii-ed.  —  Isaac 
Taylor  :  Lectures  on  Spiritiud  Christianity,  pp.  57-8. 

It  is  surely  the  birthriglit  of  every  human  being  to  think  for  him- 
self. He  is  amenable  alone  to  conscience  and  to  God  for  his  religious 
sentiments ;  and  whoever  attempts  to  legiskte  for  the  free-born  soul, 
and  coerce  the  faith  of  another,  is  perpetrating  one  of  the  most  detest- 
able of  crimes,  robbing  man  of  his  liberty,  and  God  of  his  authority. 
In  such  a  case,  submission  to  man  is  treason  against  Heaven.  — 
Dr.  F.  a.  Cox  :  Life  of  Melancthon,  p.  280. 

Reason  and  Scripture  concur  in  teaching,  tliat  it  is  at  once  the 
privilege  and  the  duty  of  every  man  to  mvestigate  the  truth  for  him- 
self; to  employ  on  religion,  as  on  otlier  sulyecL*,  the  mental  faculties 
which  his  Maker  has  bestowed  on  him,  and  the  bestowal  of  which  is  a 
suificient  indication  that  they  were  intended  to  be  exercised.  .  .  .  How 
monstrous,  then,  and  intolerable  the  tyranny  of  those  who  demand  a 
dominion  disclaimed  by  apostles !  Any  scheme,  indeed,  which  inter- 
feres with  the  jjrerogative  of  every  individual  to  judge  for  himself  in 
matters  of  rehgioii,  is  at  once  irratioiuil  and  impious ;  —  irrational,  as 
prohibiting  the  cm])l<)ynient  of  reason  on  the  most  momentous  of  all 
sulyccts,  and  turning  man  into  a  brute ;  and  impious,  as  destructive  of 
the  very  nature  of  religion,  as  rendering  it  not  "  a  reasonable  ser\-ice," 
a  mental  employment,  a  homage  rendered  with  "  the  understanding 
and  the  spirit,"  and  suited  to  the  nature  of  the  Being  to  whom  it  is 
rciulered,  and  of  tlie  being  who  renders  it,  but  a  mere  bodily  service, 
a  mechanical  exercise.  —  J)r.  RoBEUr  Balmer  :  The  Scripture  Prin- 
ciples of  Unity ;  in  Essays  on  Christian  Union,  p.  32. 


RIGHT  AND  DUTY  OF  FREE  INQUIRY.  135 

We  are  to  seek  and  search,  not  with  our  eyes  half  cksed,  as  though 
we  were  fearful  lest  we  should  see  too  much  of  truth,  —  lest  we  should 
look  beyond  God,  into  a  region  whei'e  God  is  not.  In  this  respect 
also,  seeing  that  we  have  such  a  High  Priest,  who  himself  is  passed 
into  the  heavens,  we  may  approach  boldly  to  the  temple  of  wisdom ; 
for  he  who  has  deUvered  our  hearts  and  souls  has  also  dehvered  our 
minds  from  the  bondage  of  earth.  Therefore  let  no  man  say  to  the 
waves  of  thought,  "  Thus  far  shalt  thou  go,  and  no  further."  —  Julius 
Charles  Hare  :  The  Victory  of  Faith,  pj).  59,  60. 

We  may  learn  from  our  Lord's  appeal  to  miraculous  proofs,  as  the 
foundation  of  his  claim  to  authority,  how  great  is  the  mistake  of  those 
who  imagine  that  Christian  faith  consists  in  an  iminquiring  acquiescence, 
without  any  reason  for  it ;  or  that  at  least  there  is  the  more  virtue  in  a 
man's  faith,  the  less  it  is  founded  on  evidence.  .  ,  .  The  faith  which 
Jesus  and  the  apostles  commended  in  their  hearers  consisted  in  a 
readiness  to  listen  fairly  to  what  was  said,  in  an  ingenuous  openness  to 
con\dction,  and  in  an  humble  acquiescence  in  what  they  had  good 
ground  for  believing  to  have  come  from  God,  however  adverse  to  their 
prejudices  and  wishes,  and  habits  of  thought ;  in  a  firm  trust  in  what 
they  were  rationally  convinced  God  had  promised,  however  strange,  and 
foreign  from  their  expectations  and  conjectures.  And  yet  there  have 
been  persons  in  various  ages  of  the  church  —  and  the  present  is  not 
without  them  —  who  represent  Christian  faith  as  a  thing  not  merely 
different  from  this,  but  even  opposite  to  it.  A  man's  determination 
to  adhere  to  the  religion  of  his  fathers,  merely  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  theirs,  and  tliat  it  has  long  existed,  and  that  he  has  been  assured 
by  persons  superior  to  him  in  rank,  and  in  presumed  learning,  that  the 
authority  of  the  Bible,  and  the  meaning  of  it,  are  such  as  they  tell 
him,  —  this  has  been  represented  as  the  most  perfect  Christian  faith ! 
Such  grounds  for  adhering  to  a  rehgion  have  been  described  as  not 
merely  sufficient  for  the  most  unlearned  cksses,  not  merely  as  the 
utmost  these  are  cajmble  of  attaining,  but  as  absolutely  the  best ;  as 
better  than  the  most  rational  con\iction  of  a  cultivated  imderstanding, 
that  has  long  been  sedulously  occupied  in  "  proving  all  things,  and 
holding  flist  that  which  is  right."  Now,  tliis  kind  of  (fiilsely  called) 
faith,  whose  usurped  title  serves  to  deceive  the  unthinlving,  is  precisely 
what  is  characterized  in  Scripture  as  tcant  of  faith.  For  I  need  hardly 
remind  the  reader,  that  the  unbelie\ing  Jews  and  Pagans  of  old  were 
those  who  rejected  the  "  many  infallible  proofs  "  which  God  set  before 
them,  because  thev  liad  resolved  to  adhere,  at  all  hazards,  to  the  creed 


136  RIGHT  AND  DUTY   OF   FREE   INQUIRY. 

of  their  fothers,  and  to  take  the  word  of  their  chief  priests  or  ci\ii 
magistrates  as  decisive,  and  to  stop  their  ears  against  all  evidence, 
and  drown  reason  by  clamor.  —  ARCHBISHOP  Wha'IT.ly  :  Essays  on 
Dangers  to  Christian  Faith,  pp.  125-9. 

There  is  a  wide  ditference  in  the  practical  activity  of  a  truth  pas- 
sively acquiesced  in,  and  one  attained  by  a  process  of  inquirj*  and 
reflection.  The  hold  of  the  Ibrmer  upon  the  understanding  and  the 
heart  is  feeble  and  fitful,  compared  with  the  tenure  of  that  which  is 
valued  as  the  residt  of  toil,  the  achievement  of  the  understanding,  the 
haj)i)y  settlement  of  vexed  questions  whose  agitation  has  roused  every 
faculty  of  the  mind,  and  stirred  every  feeUng  of  the  heart.  The  great 
multitude,  who  assent  to  the  authority  of  Scripture  because  they  know 
no  reason  to  the  contrary,  remain,  as  we  see  every  day,  to  a  most 
lamentable  extent  uninfluenced  by  its  teachings,  utterly  heedless  of  its 
solemn  declarations.  But  when  did  a  man  become  a  Christum  from 
investigation  of  the  claims  of  Christumity,  without  bowing  his  mind 
and  soul  to  its  authority  ?  —  I)r.  T.  E.  Bond,  jun.,  in  Methodist 
Quarterly  Review  for  Jlpril,  18o3  ;  fourth  series,  vol.  v.  p.  259. 

^^'^hv  has  he  [our  Master]  given  us  the  prmciple  of  intellectual 
curiositv  ?  Most  certainly  that  he  might  stimukite  us  in  the  path  of 
intellectual  and  religious  knowledge.  If  we  stifle  tliis  curiosity,  if  we 
bury  it  up,  if  we  have  not  an  enthusiasm  even,  in  the  occupying  of  all 
the  talents  with  which  God  has  endued  us,  then  we  are  not  conse- 
crating ourselves  to  him.  AVe  do  not  give  him  our  best  off'erings. 
We  withhold  the  freshest  fruits.  —  B.  B.  Edwards  :  IVritings,  vol.  iu 
p.  477. 

God  has  written  upon  our  minds  the  ineffaceable  law  th:\t  they 
search  after  the  truth,  whatever,  wherever  it  be,  however  arduous  the 
toil  for  it,  whithersoever  it  may  lead.  Let  it  come.  Even  if  it  should 
promise  nothing  to  the  utilitarian,  there  are  yet  ^vithin  us  the  mirabiles 
amores  to  find  it  out,  A  sound  heart  is  alive  with  this  curiosity,  and 
will  not  retain  its  health  while  its  aspirations  are  rebutted.  It  gives 
no  unbroken  peace  to  the  man  who  thwarts  his  reasoning  instincts; 
for,  amid  all  its  conflicting  demands,  it  is  at  times  importunate  for  a 
reasonable  belief.  When  it  is  famished  by  an  idle  intellect,  it  loses 
its  tone,  l)ccomcs  bigoted  rather  than  inquisjjive,  and  takes  up  with 
theological  iiuicies  which  reduce  it  still  lower.  When  it  is  fed  by  an 
inquiring  mind,  it  is  enhvened,  and  reaches  out  for  an  ex])andcd 
fiiith.  —  Edwards  A.  Park  :  Theology  of  tlie  Intellect  and  of  thA 
Feelings ;  in  Bibtiotlteca  Saa-a  for  July,  I860;  vol.  vii.  p.  543. 


RIGHT  AND   DOTY  OF   FREE   INQUIUY.  137 

Christ  came  to  put  an  end  to  hereditary  faith,  —  to  make  each 
man  s  belief  original  and  independent  with  himself,  du-ectly  drawn 
,  from  the  only  source  of  Christian  doctrine  and  practice.  Nothing  is 
more  certain  than  that  religion  is  a  subject  upon  which  all  persons  are, 
under  obligations  the  most  solemn  to  deliberate,  choose,  and  act  for 
themselves.  Freedom  of  inquiry  is  a  high  privilege,  as  safe  for  the 
masses  as  for  indidduals ;  and  this  boon  Christ  procured  for  all  our 
race.  He  never  designed  that  a  few  should  lead,  and  that  the 
multitude  should  be  compelled  to  follow  in  their  steps.  But  what 
are  the  spirit  and  language  of  many  professed  teachers  of  Christianity  ? 
"  Out  of  my  creed  there  is  no  orthodoxy :  out  of  my  church  there  is 
no  salvation."     But,  fortunately,  the  days  of  such  priestly  arrogance 

are  numbered It  is  the  divine  prerogative  of  truth  to  restore 

the  origuial  sovereignty  of  the  best  powers,  and  the  symmetrical 
develoi)ment  of  alL  In  this  matter,  there  is  no  question  of  more  or 
less ;  fi-eedom  exists,  or  it  does  not ;  and  it  is  obvious  that  the  liberty 
of  a  rational  being  consists  precisely  in  the  free  use  of  the  faculties 
inherent  in  his  nature,  and  of  all  liis  faculties  or  powers,  without 
exception  or  extravagance.  .  .  .  Mental  freedom  is  the  only  true  free- 
dom, the  foundation  of  all  other  liberty,  without  which  an  immortal 
creature  is  a  degraded  slave,  and  not  the  less  a  vassal  because  hia 
chains  may  chance  to  be  made  of  gold. 

"  For  what  is  freedom  but  the  unfettered  use 
Of  all  the  powers  which  God  for  use  hath  given?  " 

. . .  The  intellectual  power  of  man  proves  that  there  must  be  an  objec* 
suitable  for  its  exercise,  and  demanding  its  study.  This  object  is  truth, 
the  knowledge  of  something  real,  and  consists  in  the  exact  understand- 
ing or  the  highest  rei\lities  that  exist.  This  is  the  grand  boon  proffered 
to  us  here  and  in  a  more  exalted  life.  —  E.  L.  Magoon  :  Republican 
Christianity,  pp.  244,  355-6. 


In  this  and  the  otlier  sections  of  the  present  chapter,  we  should  hf.^9 
been  ghid  to  make  a  few  extracts  from  "  Essays  on  the  Formation  and 
Publication  of  Opinions,  and  on  the  Pursuit  of  Truth,  by  Samuel  Bailey;  '* 
but,  uncertain  as  to  the  theological  standing  of  the  author,  we  can  only 
recommend  to  the  attentive  perusal  of  the  reader  the  most  beautiful  and  inte  • 
resting  productions  that  have  perhaps  ever  been  written  on  these  subjects. 
They  are  discussed  from  a  philosophical  point  of  view;  but  the  sentiments 
maintained  seem  to  harmonize  with  the  most  enlarged  views  of  the  gospel, 
and  are  admirably  calculated  to  produce  feelings  of  amity  between  all  the 
professing  disciples  of  Jesus  Christ. 

12* 


]38  REQUISITES  IN  THE  PURSUIT  OP  TRUTH. 


BECT.   III.  —  DISPOSITIONS   AND    MEANS    REQUISITE    IN    THE    SEARCH 
AFTER  TRUTH. 

Imagination's  airy  wing  repress ; 
Lock  up  thy  senses;  let  no  passion  stir; 
Wake  all  to  reason ;  let  her  reign  alone ; 
Then,  in  thy  soul's  deep  silence,  and  the  depth 
Of  nature's  silence,  midnight,  thus  inquire. 

Edward  Yoono. 

Diligence  and  care  in  obtaining  the  best  guides  and  the  most  con- 
venient assistances,  prayer,  and  modesty  of  spirit,  simplicitj-  of  purposes 
and  intentions,  humility  and  aptness  to  learn,  and  a  peaceable  disposi- 
tion, are  necessarj'  to  finding  out  truths,  because  they  are  parts  of  good 
life,  ^^^thout  which  our  truths  vdW  do  us  little  advantage,  and  our  errors 
have  no  excuse.  But  with  these  disjiositions,  as  he  is  sure  to  find 
out  all  that  is  necessarj-,  so  what  truth  he  inculpably  misses  of  he  is 
sure  is  therefore  not  necessary,  because  he  could  not  find  it  when  he 
did  his  best  and  his  most  innocent  endeavors.  —  Jeremy  Taylor  : 
Liberty  of  Prophesying,  sect.  xii.  6;  in  Works,  vol.  \n.  p.  116. 

1.  [In  prosecuting  your  inquiries]  Begin  at  the  greatest,  most 
evident,  certain  and  necessary  truths,  and  so  proceed  orderly  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  less  by  the  help  of  these.  If  you  begin  at  those 
truths  which  spring  out  of  greater  common  truths,  and  know  not  the 
premises  while  you  plead  for  the  conclusion,  you  abuse  your  reason, 
and  lose  the  truth  and  your  labor  both.  —  2.  The  two  first  things 
M'hich  you  are  to  learn  are  what  man  is  and  what  God  is.  —  3.  Havuig 
Roundly  understood  the  principles  of  religion,  tr)  all  the  subsequent 
truths  thereby,  and  receive  nothing  as  truth  that  is  certainly  inconsist- 
ent with  any  of  these  principles.  —  4.  Beheve  nothing  which  cerUiinly 
contradicteth  the  end  of  all  religion.  If  it  be  a  natural  or  necessiuy 
tendency  to  ungodliness,  against  the  love  of  God,  or  against  a  holy  and 
heavenly  mind  and  conversation,  it  cannot  be  truth,  wlutever  it  jjre- 
tend.  —  5.  Be  sure  to  distinguish  well  betwixt  revealed  and  unrevealed 
things.  —  6.  Be  a  careful  and  accurate,  though  not  a  vain,  distinguisher ; 
and  suffer  not  ambiguity  and  confusion  to  deceive  you.  It  is  not  only 
in  many  words,  but  in  one  word  or  syllable,  that  so  much  ambiguity 
and  confusion  may  be  contiiincd  as  may  make  a  long  dispute  to  be  but 
a  vain  and  ridiculous  wrangling.  —  7.  Therefore  be  siieciully  suspicious 
of  metaphors,  as  being  all  but  amliiguities  till  an  explication  hilli  fixed 


REQUISITES   IN   THE   PURSUIT   OF   TRUTH.  139 

or  determined  the  sense.  —  13.  Plead  not  unct^rtalntles  against  cer- 
tainties, but  make  certain  points  the  measure  to  try  the  uncertain  by. 

—  !  4.  Plead  not  the  darker  texts  of  Scrijjture  ag;xinst  those  that  are 
more  plaui  and  clear,  nor  a  few  texts  against  many  that  are  as  plain  ; 
for  that  which  is  interpreted  against  the  most  plain  and  frequent 
expressions  of  the  same  Scripture  is  certainly  misinterpreted.  — 
21.  Li  controversies  which  depend  most  upon  skill  in  the  languages, 
philosophy,  or  other  parts  of  common  learning,  prefer  the  judgment  of 
a  few  tbit  are  the  most  learned  in  those  matters,  before  the  judgment 
of  the  most  ancient,  or  the  most  godly,  or  of  the  greatest  numbers, 
even  whole  chm-ches,  that  are  unlearned.  Every  man  is  most  to  be 
regarded  in  the  matters  which  he  is  best  acquainted  with.  —  22.  In 
conti'oversies  of  great  difficulty  where  divines  themselves  are  disagreed, 
and  a  clear  and  piercing  wit  is  necessary,  regard  more  the  judgment 
of  a  few  acute,  judicious,  well-studied  di\-ines  that  are  well  versed  in 
those  controversies,  than  of  a  multitude  of  dull  and  common  wits  that 
think  to  carry  it  by  the  reputation  of  their  number.  —  23.  In  all  con- 
tentions, hold  close  to  tbit  which  all  sides  are  agreed  on.  —  24.  Take 
nothing  as  necessary  to  salvation  in  point  of  faith,  which  the  universal 
church  in  every  age  since  Christ  did  not  receive.  —  25.  Be  not  borne 
down  by  the  censoriousness  of  any  to  overrun  your  own  understanding 
and  the  truth,  and  to  comply  with  them  m  their  errors  and  extremes. 

—  26.  Doubt  not  of  well-proved  truths,  for  every  difficulty  that  appear- 
eth  against  them.  —  Richard  Baxter  :  Christian  Directory ;  in 
Practical  Works,  voL  v.  pp.  139-50. 

These  directions  from  Baxter  have  been  epitomized;  and  others,  less 
appropriate,  entirely  omitted.  But  it  would  scarcely  be  doing  justice  to  the 
piety  of  this  great  man  to  withhold  an  excellent  passage  which  occurs  in 
vol.  viii.  pp.' 29,  30:  "  Come  to  the  word  [the  Scripture]  in  meekness  and 
humility,  with  a  teachable  frame  of  spirit,  and  a  willingness  to  know  the 
truth,  and  a  resolution  to  stand  to  it,  and  yield  to  what  shall  be  revealed  to 
you;  and  beg  of  God  to  show  j'on  his  will,  and  lead  you  into  the  truth;  and 
you  will  find  that  he  will  be  found  of  them  that  ask  him." 

He  that  will  advance  any  thing  in  the  finding  out  of  truth  must 
bring  to  it  that  traveller's  indifference  which  the  heathen  so  long  since 
recommended  to  the  world.  He  must  not  desire  it  should  he  on  the 
one  side  rather  than  the  other,  lest  his  desire  that  it  should,  prompt 
him,  without  just  reason,  to  believe  that  it  does.  And  so  in  religion 
too :  he  that  will  make  a  right  judgment,  wliat  to  believe  or  what  to 
practise,  must  first  throw  otf  all  prejudice  in  favor  of  his  own  opinion, 


140  REQUISITES   IN  THE   PIJRSUIT   OF   TRUTH. 

or  against  any  others ;  and  resolve  never  to  be  so  tied  up  to  any  point 
or  party  as  not  to  be  at  all  times  ready  impartially  to  examine  whatso- 
ever can  reasonably  be  objected  ag^.xinst  either.  —  Archbishop  W.\ke  : 
Sennoiis  and  Discourses,  pp.  17,  18. 

Wliatevcr  warmth  or  heat  any  may  show,  it  will  still  remain  an 
eternal  truth,  that  a  calm  temper  of  mind,  and  a  meek,  and  charitable 
disposition  of  soul,  are  qualifications  absolutely  necessary  either  to  dis- 
cover truth  ourselves,  or  to  judge  right  of  tlie  sentiments  and  opinions 
of  others.  That  blind  and  furious  transport  of  mind  wliich  we  com- 
monly term  zeal  is  of  no  manner  of  use,  either  for  the  one  or  the  other 
of  these  purposes,  but,  on  the  contrary,  very  prejudicial  in  all  serious 
inquiries,  especially  those  of  religious  controversies.  —  Abridged  from 
Le  Clerc:  Abstract  of  Dr.  Clarke's  Polemical  Writings,  p.  113; 
Lond.  1713. 

Let  us  divest  ourselves  of  a  party  spirit.  Let  us  never  determine 
an  opinion  by  its  agreement  or  disagreement  with  what  our  masters, 
our  j)arents,  or  om-  teachers  liave  inculcated,  but  by  its  conformity  or 
contrariety  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles.  Let  us 
never  receive  or  reject  a  maxim  because  it  favors  or  opposes  our  pas- 
sions, but  as  it  agrees  \vith  or  opposes  the  laws  of  that  tribunal,  the 
bases  of  which  are  justice  and  truth.  Let  us  be  fully  convinced  that 
our  chief  study  should  be  to  know  what  God  determines,  and  to  make 

his  commands  the  only  rules  of  our  knowledge  and  practice 

Truth  requires  that  we  should  sacrifice  precipitancy  of  judgment. 
Few  people  are  capable  of  this  si\crifice :  indeed,  there  are  but  few 
who  do  not  consider  suspension  of  judgment  as  a  weakness,  although 
It  is  one  of  the  noblest  efforts  of  genius  and  capacity.  In  regard  to 
religion,  people  usiuilly  make  a  scruple  of  conscience  of  suspending 
their  judgments  ;  yet,  in  our  opinion,  a  Chi-istian  is  so  much  the  more 
obliged  to  do  this,  by  how  much  more  the  truths  of  the  gospel  siu^ 
pass  in  suljlimity  and  imporUmce  all  the  objects  of  human  science.  I 
forgive  this  folly  in  a  man  educated  in  superstition,  who  is  threatened 
with  eternal  damnation,  if  he  reverence  certain  doctrines,  wliich  not 
only  he  has  not  examined,  but  which  he  is  forbidden  to  examine  under 
the  siune  jienalty.  But  that  men  of  learning  and  piety  should  im;igine 
they  have  obtiiined  a  signal  victory  over  infiilclity,  and  have  accredited 
religion,  when,  by  the  help  of  some  terrific  declamations,  they  hive 
extorted  a  ciitechumen's  consent,  —  this  is  wluit  we  could  liave 
scarcely  believed,  had  we  not  seen  numberless  cxam])les  of  it.  A 
truth  received  without  proof  is,  in  regard  to  us,  a  kind  of  falsehood 


REQUISITES   IN  THE   PURSUIT  OF  TRUTH.  141 

Yea,  a  truth  received  without  endence  is  a  never-failing  source  of 
many  errors,  because  a  truth  received  without  evidence  is  founded,  in 
regard  to  us,  only  on  false  princij)les.  We  must,  then,  suspend  our 
judgments,  whatever  inclination  we  may  naturally  have  to  determine 
at  once,  in  order  to  save  the  attention  and  labor  which  a  more  ample 
discussion  of  truth  would  require.  —  Abridged  from  James  Saurin  : 
Sermons,  vol.  i.  pp.  44-5,  136. 

The  Scriptm-es  direct  us  to  inquii-e  into  the  foundation  of  the  doc- 
trines proposed  to  oiu:  acceptance ;  and  indeed,  without  the  exercise 
of  our  reason,  I  knoAV  not  how  we  could  understand  or  adopt  the 
plainest  doctrines  of  Christianity.  But  it  is  of  much  importance  to 
have  right  dispositions  of  mind  at  the  time  of  our  inquiry.  Such 
are  humiUty,  modesty,  docility,  and  a  sincere  desire  to  improve.  — 
ViCESiMUS  Knox  :  Sermons ;  in  Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  120. 

We  ought  to  have  an  honest  desire  after  light ;  and,  if  we  have  the 
desire,  it  Avill  not  remain  improductive.  .  ,  .  We  ought  to  have  a  habit 
of  prayer  conjoined  with  a  habit  of  inquiry ;  and  to  this  more  will  be 
given.  ...  It  is  through  the  avenues  of  a  desirous  heart  and  of  an 
exercised  understanding,  and  of  sustained  attention,  and  of  faculties  in 
quest  of  truth,  and  laboring  after  the  possession  of  it,  that  God  sends 
into  the  mind  his  promised  manifestations. . . .  He  who  without  prayer 
looks  confidently  forward  to  success  as  the  fruit  of  his  own  investiga- 
tions is  not  walking  humbly  with  God.  —  Dr.  Thomas  Chalmers  • 
Sermons  on  the  Depravity  of  Human  JVature;  in  Select  Works, 
voL  iv.  pp.  27-8. 

The  Scriptures  themselves  will  sen-e  to  explain  their  own  meaning 
in  the  most  essential  points,  if  studied,  under  the  guidance  of  God's 
Holy  Spirit,  with  an  humble,  patient,  diligent,  and  candid  mind.  And 
such  a  mind,  even  without  extensive  learning  or  great  abilit)',  wiU  be 
more  enlightened  by  them  than  the  most  learned  or  the  most  inge- 
nious, if  led  away  by  conceited  and  presumptuous  fancies,  and  given 
up  to  indolent  prejudice,  or  blinded  by  spiritual  pride,  or  the  spirit  of 
party.  —  Archbishop  Whately  :  Sermons  on  Various  Subjects, 
pp.  50-1. 

Inquiry  in  theology,  as  in  every  thing  else,  to  be  fruitful  and  in- 
structive, must  be  undogmatic,  —  must  strive,  apart  from  hypothesis 
and  all  later  superpositions,  to  ascend  to  the  truth,  as  it  appears  in 
its  original  som-ces,  or  in  its  successive  forms  throughout  the  history 
of  the  churcL  To  have  recourse  either  to  the  Bible  itself,  or  the 
Writings  of  the  Fathers,  in  a  different  spirit,  and  to  seek  in  them,  not 


142  REQUISITES  IN  THE  PURSUIT  OF  TRUTH 

simply  for  the  truth  in  its  corresponding  and  appropriate  expression, 
but  in  some  favorite  dogmatic  form  of  a  subsequent  age,  js  clearly  at 
once  an  historical  and  unphilosophical  j)rocess,  in  which  much  inge- 
nuity may  be  displayed,  but  by  which  truth  can  never  be  eHcited  and 
advanced.  It  is  tainted  with  the  worst  A^ice  of  the  old  method  of 
phj'sical  inquiry,  from  which  Bacon  initiated  our  deliverance ;  making, 
as  it  docs,  the  hmited  ideas  and  idol  formuhs  of  some  one  age  the 
measure  of  that  objective  truth  which  transcends  them  all.  —  JVbrth 
British  Rcvieiv  for  May,  1853 ;  Amer.  edit.  vol.  xiv.  p.  49. 

In  the  formation  of  your  own  opinions,  ...  be  independent ;  use 
your  own  reason,  your  o\vn  senses,  your  own  Bible.  Be  untrammeled ; 
throw  off  the  chains  and  fetters  wliich  compel  so  many  minds  to  believe 
onl)  what  they  are  told  to  believe,  and  to  walk  intellectually  and 
morally  in  paths  marked  out  for  them  by  human  teachers.  ...  Be 
modest.  It  is  the  characteristic  of  a  weak  mind  to  be  dogmatical  and 
positive.  Such  a  xnind  makes  up  in  dogged  determination  to  beheve 
what  it  wants  in  eridence.  Come  to  your  conclusions  cautiously,  and 
take  care  that  your  belief  covers  no  more  ground  than  your  proofs. 
Do  not  dispute  about  what  you  do  not  undersfcxnd,  nor  pusi  your 
investigations  beyond  the  boundaries  of  human  knowledge.  >■»  .n  are 
often  sadly  perplexed  with  difficulties  which  arise  from  the  bim])le 
feet  that  they  have  got  beyond  their  depth-  —  Jacob  AbboTx  .  The 
Camer-stont,  pp.  357-8. 


The  principles  which  have  been  recommended  in  this  and  tlie  two  pre- 
ceding sections  are  ostensibly  lield  by  all  Protestants,  whether  Tri  itarian 
or  Unitarian.  But  they  are  contravened  by  parents,  teachers,  and  divines, 
when  they  would  quench  the  love  of  truth  and  of  investigation,  natural  to 
honest  and  noble  minds,  by  grounding  belief  on  the  authority  of  parentage, 
of  the  church,  or  of  celebrated  men ;  by  misrepresenting  the  sentiments  and 
motives  of  those  who  difl'cr  from  them  in  opinion;  by  instilling  the  notion, 
that  no  genuine  faith,  no  sincere  piety,  no  well-grounded  hope  of  heaven, 
can  be  found  beyond  the  pale  of  their  own  narrow  .creed ;  in  fine,  by  virtually 
declaritig, ''  Inquire,  —  but  never  doubt;  search  the  Scriptures  —  to  *ind  our 
TJews;  read  with  the  understanding  —  that  we  are  right;  reason  with  tiiti 
conviction  —  that  all  else  are  wrong.  Your  interests  in  this  world,  and  your 
salvation  in  the  next,  dejjcnd  on  the  unconditional  suiTcnder  of  your  under- 
standings to  the  faith  ire  prescribe,  —  on  the  unhesitating  rejection  of  all 
contrary  opinions." 

These  and  other  impediments  to  free  inquiry,  and  to  the  rece,)tion  of 
views  of  truth  founded  on  individual  conviction,  will  be  treated  of  in  thfl 
following  section. 


IMPEDIMENTS  TO  THE   PURSUIT   OF  TKUTH.  143 


flECT.  IV.  —  HINDRANCES  TO  FREE  INQUIRY,  AND  TO  THE  RECEPTION 
AND  SPREAD  OF   TRUTH. 

We  pray, 
Above  all  things,  Lord,  that  all  men  be  free 

From  bondiige, 

The  bondage  of  religious  bigotry 
And  bald  antiquity,  servility 
Of  thought  or  speech. 

P.  J.  Bailet. 

§  1.  Early  Peejudices. 

Another  great  cause  of  pretended  false  knowledge  and  confidence 
is  the  unhappy  prejudices  which  our  minds  contract  even  in  our  child- 
hood, before  we  have  time  and  wit  and  conscience  to  try  things  by  true 
deliberation.  Children  and  youth  must  receive  much  upon  trust,  or 
else  they  can  learn  nothing ;  but  then  they  have  not  wit  to  proportion 
their  apprehensions  to  the  evidence,  whether  of  credibility  or  certainty ; 
and  so  fame  and  tradition  and  education,  and  the  country's  vote,  do 
become  the  ordinary  parents  of  many  lies;  and  folly  maketh  us  to 
fiisten  so  fearlessly  in  our  first  apprehensions,  that  they  keep  open  the 
door  to  abimdance  [of]  more  falsehoods ;  and  it  must  be  clear  teachers, 
or  great,  impartial  studies,  of  a  self-denjing  mind,  with  a  great  bless- 
ing of  God,  that  must  deliver  us  from  prejudice,  and  undeceive  us.  — 
Richard  Baxter  :  Knowledge  and  Lovt  Compared ;  in  Practical 
Works,  vol.  XV.  pp.  156-7. 

It  is  no  small  work  to  examine  the  truth,  when  we  arrive  at  an  age 
cajjable  of  discussion.  The  fundamental  points  of  religion,  I  grant,  lie 
in  the  Scriptures  clear  and  persjiicuous,  and  within  the  comprehension 
of  all  who  choose  to  attend  to  them ;  but  when  we  pass  from  infancy 
to  manhood,  and  arrive  at  an  age  in  which  reason  seems  mature,  we 
find  ourselves  covered  vvith  a  veil,  which  either  hides  objects  from  us,  or 
disfigures  them.  The  public  discourses  we  have  heard  in  favor  of  the 
sect  in  which  we  were  educated,  the  inveterate  hatred  we  have  for  all 
others  who  hold  principles  o])posite  to  ours,  the  frightful  portraits  that 
are  drawn  before  our  eyes  of  the  perils  we  must  encounter  if  we  depart 
from  the  way  we  have  been  brought  up  in,  the  impressions  made  upon 
us  by  the  examples  and  decisions  of  our  parents  and  masters  and 
teachers,  the  bad  taste  of  those  who  had  the  care  of  our  education, 
and  who  prevented  our  acquiring  that  most  noble  disposition,  without 


144  IMPEDniEN'TS  TO   THE   PURSUIT   OF   TRUTa. 

which  it  is  impossible  ever  to  be  a  trae  philosopher  or  a  real  Christian, 
—  I  mean  that  of  suspending  our  judgment  on  subjects  not  suificiently 
proved,  —  from  all  this  arise  clouds  that  render  the  truth  inaccessible, 
and  which  the  world  cannot  dissipate.  'We  do  not  say  that  natural 
talents  or  supernatural  assistance  are  wanting  :  we  are  fully  conduced 
that  God  will  never  give  up  to  final  eiTor  any  man  who  does  all  in  his 
power  to  understand  the  truth.  But  the  world  are  incajjable  of  this 
work.  Why  ?  Because  all  the  world,  except  a  few,  hate  labor  and 
meditation  in  regard  to  the  subjects  which  respect  another  life;  be- 
cause all  the  world  would  choose  rather  to  attach  themselves  to  what 
regards  their  temporal  interests  than  to  the  great  interest  of  eternal 
ha])])iness ;  because  all  the  world  like  better  to  suppose  the  principles 
imbibed  in  their  childhood  true,  than  to  impose  on  themselves  the 
task  of  weighing  them  anew  in  the  balance  of  a  sound  and  severe 
reason ;  because  all  the  world  have  an  invincible  aversion  to  supjjose, 
that,  when  they  are  arrived  at  manhood,  they  have  almost  lost  their 
time  in  some  respects,  and  that,  when  they  leave  school,  they  begin  to 
be  capable  of  instruction.  —  James  Saurin  :  Sermons,  voL  ii.  p.  29. 

Many  persons,  not  generally  uninquiring  or  uncandid,  or  incom- 
petent to  reason  accuratcl}',  have  yet  been  so  early  accustomed  to  take 
for  gnxnted,  and  assent  to  on  authority,  certain  j)articular  points,  that 
they  afterwards  adhere  to  the  belief  so  formed,  rather  from  association 
than  on  evidence.  —  Archbishop  Whately  :  Essays  on  Difficulties 
in  Paul's  IVritings,  p.  219. 

One  great  source  of  erroneous  impressions  on  all  subjects  is  the 
power  of  influences  exerted  in  early  life,  and  which  are  sometimes  so 
strong  as  utterly  to  bid  defiance  to  all  argument,  .  .  .  This  influence 
of  early  associations  has  more  power  tlian  all  other  causes  ])ut  together, 
in  the  formation  of  religious  opinions.  The  children  of  Mahometins 
become  Mahometans  themselves,  without  arguments  in  favor  of  the 
Prophet ;  and,  in  the  Christian  world,  religious  opinions  arc  hcreditiry, 
and  pass  down,  with  exccjjtions  comjiarativcly  few  and  rare,  from  father 
to  son ;  so  that  Popery  and  Protestantism,  I'^piscopacy  and  Dissent, 
and  Presbyterian,  Baptist,  and  Methodist  opinions,  occupy,  in  the  main, 
the  same  ground,  from  generation  to  generation.  .  .  .  Every  intelli- 
gent observer  of  the  human  mind,  and  especially  of  the  habits  and 
susceptibihties  of  childhood,  will  at  once  admit,  that  other  influences 
than  those  of  argument  are  the  eflicient  ones  in  the  production  of 
these  almost  universal  eUects.  —  Jacob  ABBorr  :  The  Corner-stone^ 
pp.  290-2. 


IMPEDIMENTS  TO   THE  PURSUIT  OF   TRUTH.  145 


4  2.  Prostration  of  the  Judgment  to  Authority. 

Is  it  not  blameworthy  in  us,  and  a  proof  of  carnality,  ...  to  give  up 
our  judgment  to  be  Avholly  guided  by  the  writings  of  Luther  or  Calvin, 
or  of  any  other  mortal  man  whatsoever  ?  Worthy  instruments  they 
were,  both  of  them,  of  God's  glory,  and  such  as  did  excellent  service  to 
the  church  in  their  times,  whereof  we  yet  find  the  benefit ;  and  we  are 
unthankful  if  we  do  not  bless  God  for  it :  and  therefore  it  is  an  unsavory 
thing  for  any  man  to  gird  at  their  names,  whose  memories  ought  to  be 
precious.  But  yet  were  they  not  men  ?  Had  they  received  the  Spirit 
in  the  fulness  of  it,  and  not  by  measure  ?  Knew  they  otherwise  tlian  in 
part,  or  prophesied  otherwise  than  in  part  ?  Might  they  not  in  many 
things,  and  they  not  in  some  things,  mistake  and  err.''  Howsoever, 
the  apostle's  interrogatoi-ies  ai"e  unanswerable.  What  saith  he  ?  "  Was 
Paul  crucified  for  you  ?  or  were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul  ?  " 
Even  so,  was  either  Luther  or  Calvin  crucified  for  you  ?  Or  were  ye 
baptized  into  the  name  of  Luther  or  Calvin,  or  any  other  man,  that 
any  one  of  you  should  say,  I  am  of  Luther ;  or  any  other,  I  am  of 
Calvin ;  and  I  of  him,  and  I  of  him  ?  What  is  Calvin  or  !{jUther  .  .  , 
but  "  ministers  by  whom  ye  believed ;  "  that  is  to  say,  instruments,  but 
not  lords,  of  your  beUef  ?  —  Bishop  Sanderson  :  Thirty-Jive  Ser- 
mons, p.  295;  Lond.  1681,  seventh  edit. 

There  are  many  among  us  so  strangely  engaged  by  false  principles 
to  an  ill  cause,  that  it  is  in  vain  to  offier  them  the  clearest  arguments  to 
conAince  them.  If  you  bring  them  Scripture,  it  is  true  that  must  be 
heard ;  but  then,  be  it  never  so  plain,  they  are  not  competent  judges 
of  the  meaning  of  it ;  and  they  dm-st  not  trust  their  own  interpretation 
to  tell  them  that  Abraham  begat  Isaac,  if  the  church  should  think 
fit  to  expound  it  otherwise.  ...  If  you  offer  them  reason  as  clear  as 
the  plainest  demonstration,  why,  that  were  well ;  but  still  private  reason 
may  eiT,  and  the  church  cannot.  .  .  .  Sense,  reason.  Scripture,  all  are 
of  no  force  against  this  one  prejudice  of  their  church's  authority.  — 
Archbishop  Wake  :  Seitnons  and  Discourses,  pp.  18,  19. 

Implicit  faith  has  been  sometimes  ludicrously  styled  Jides  carbonaria, 
from  the  noted  story  of  one  who,  on  examining  an  ignorant  collier  on 
his  religious  princii)les,  asked  him  what  it  was  that  he  believed.  He 
answered,  "  I  believe  what  the  church  believes."  The  other  rejoined, 
"  What,  then,  does  the  church  believe  ?  "  He  repUed  readily,  "  The 
church  believes  what  I  believe."  The  other,  desirous  if  possible  to 
bring  him  tc  particulars,  once  more  resumes  hLs  inquiry :  "  Tell  me» 

13 


146  IMPEDIMENTS   TO   THE  PURSUIT   OF   TIlUTn. 

then,  I  pray  you,  what  it  is  which  you  and  the  church  both  believe." 
The  only  answer  the  collier  could  give  was,  "  Why  trul} ,  sir,  the 
church  and  I  both  —  believe  the  same  thing."  Tliis  is  iniplinit  faith 
in  perfection,  and,  in  tlie  estinaation  of  some  celebrated  doctors,  tlie 
sum  of  necessary  and  saving  knowledge  in  a  Christian.  —  Dr.  George 
Campbell  :  Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  Led.  23. 

Deference  to  great  names  is  a  sentiment  which  it  would  be  base  to 
attempt  to  eradiaite,  and  impossible  were  it  attempted.  But,  like 
other  offsprings  of  the  mind,  it  is  at  first  rude  aud  ill-sliaj)en.  It  makes 
no  selection,  no  discrimination;  it  ret;uns  the  impress  of  its  original 
entire,  just  as  it  was  made ;  it  is  a  vague,  undistinguishing  admiration, 
which  consecrates  in  a  mass  all  the  errors  and  deformities,  along  with 
the  real  excellences,  of  its  object.  Time  onJy,  the  justest  of  all  critics, 
gives  it  correctness  and  proportion,  and  converts  what  is  at  first  merely 
the  action  of  a  gi'eat  upon  an  inferior  mind  into  an  enlightened  and 
impartial  estimate  of  distinguished  worth.  —  Robert  ILvLL  :  Reply 
to  the  Rtv.  Joseph  Kinghorn ;  in  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  502. 

Tliuik  you,  my  bretliren,  tliat  there  is  no  Popery  among  you  .'*  Is 
there  no  taking  of  your  reUgion  upon  trust  from  another,  when  you 
should  draw  it  fresh  and  misuUied  from  the  fountiiin-head  of  inspira- 
tion.''-' Do  you  ever  dare  to  bring  your  favorite  minister  to  tlie 
tribunal  of  the  word  ?  or  would  you  tremble  at  the  presumption  of 
such  an  attempt ;  so  that  the  hearing  of  the  word  ciu-ries  a  greater 
authority  over  your  mind  thtm  the  reacHng  of  the  word  ?  Now,  tliis 
want  of  diiring,  this  trembUng  at  the  very  idea  of  a  dissent  from  your 
minister,  tliis  indolent  acquiescence  in  his  doctrine,  is  just  &vlUng 
another  man  master;  it  is  puttmg  the  authority  of  man  over  the 
authority  of  God ;  it  is  throwing  yourseU'  into  a  jjrostrate  attitude  at 
the  footstool  of  human  infallibility.  It  is  not  just  kissing  the  toe  of 
reverence ;  but  it  is  tlie  profounder  degradation  of  the  mind,  and  of  all 
its  faculties.  It  is  said  that  Papists  worship  saints ;  but  have  we  no 
consecrated  names  in  the  anruils  of  lleformation,  —  no  worthies  wlio 
hold  too  commanding  a  pLice  in  tlie  remembrance  and  affection  of 
Protestants  ?  Are  there  no  departed  theologians,  wliose  works  lK)ld  too 
domineering  an  iiscendency  over  the  faith  and  practice  of  Christi.uis? 
Do  we  not  bend  the  understiinding  before  the  volumes  of  favorite 
authors,  and  do  a  homage  to  those  representations  of  the  minds  of  the 
men  of  other  days  which  should  be  exclusively  given  to  the  rejjre- 
Bent  ition  of  the  mind  of  the  Sj)irit,  as  put  down  in  the  book  of  the 
Sjiirit's  revelation  ?     It  is  riglit  tkit  each  of  us  sliould  give  the  contri- 


IMPEDIMENTS   TO   THE  PURSUIT  OF  TRUTH.  14.7 

bution  of  his  o^vn  talents  and  his  own  learning  to  tliis  most  interesting 
cause ;  but  let  the  great  di-Lt't  of  our  argument  be  to  prop  the  authoiity 
of  the  Bible,  and  to  turn  the  e}"e  of  earnestness  upon  its  jJages.  — 
Abridged  from  Dr.  Thomas  Chalmers  :  Select  Works,  vol.  iv. 
pp.  244-5. 

Since  men  really  cannot  believe  or  disbeHeve  without  something 
before  the  mind  which  it  takes  for  e\idence,  the  first  dictate  of  a  sound 
conscience  would  be  to  examine  that  evidence  carefully,  lest  we  should 
be  deceived ;  so  that  following  conscience,  in  this  sense,  would  come 
to  the  same  thing  as  following  reason.  But  what  these  men  mean  by 
conscience  is  certain  "  feelings  of  awe  and  reverence  and  admiration," 
and  bUnd  submission  to  authority,  which  they  are  pleased  to  call  by 
that  name ;  and  the  course  they  mean  to  recommend  is  taking  for 
e\'idence  of  the  tridh  of  a  religious  system  its  apparent  fitness  for 
gratif}'ing  such  feelings.  The  difference,  then,  between  them  and  us 
is  just  this :  ice  demand  in  religious  matters  the  same  sort  of  e\'idence 
as  the  knowni  laws  of  reason  and  the  common  experience  of  mankind 
require  as  the  only  adequate  proof  in  other  matters.  They  substitute 
for  such  proof  a  sort  of  evidence  in  which  impartial  reason  can,  discover 
no  cogency,  and  upon  which  they  would  themselves  refuse  to  act  in  the 
ordinary  affairs  of  life.  For  though  they  will  tell  you  that  natural 
piety  requires  a  man  to  aloide  by  the  creed  of  an  ignorant  or  doting 
parent  or  pastor,  yet  you  will  rarely  find  them  ready  to  jjurchase  a 
blind  horse,  or  sell  out  stock  at  a  disadvantage,  or  exchange  a  good 
fann  for  a  bad  one,  in  deference  to  the  same  venerable  authority.  — 
Archbishop  Wil\tely  :  Cautions  for  the  Times,  p.  333-4. 

The  founders  of  almost  every  denomination  have  something  of 
attraction  about  them.  Generally  they  have  been  men  of  worth  and 
of  public  notoriety.  They  were  raised  up,  it  might  be,  in  a  dark 
and  declining  age,  and  had  botli  a  great  work  to  do,  and  grace  given 
them  to  do  it.  While  they  were  men  of  signal  excellence,  yet  still 
they  were  men ;  and  everj-  one  of  them  had  tailings,  and  peculiarities 
of  manners  and  habits,  which  made  them  singular.  They  have  left 
their  name  upon  their  sect ;   and  they  have  stamped  it,  to  a  certain 

extent,  with  their  own  features What  renders  the  worship  — 

for  I  can  call  it  by  no  other  name  —  of  the  early  llefomiers,  and  of  the 
heads  of  any  religious  jrart}',  now  ])eculiarly  unreasonal)le,  is  the  fact, 
that,  while  they  were  exceUent  men,  they  were  very  lately  come  out 
of  the  bosom  of  the  church  of  Home,  and  had  their  lot  cast  in  a  some- 
wliat  dark  and  intolerant  age.     To  set  them  up  as  the  pai"agons  of 


148  IMPEDIMENTS  TO   TUE   PURSUIT  01   TRUTH. 

excellence  as  to  every  jioint  of  church  order  is  to  sujjpose,  tliat  the 
religious  world,  amid  the  light  and  civilization  of  modern  times,  lias 
been  standing  still ;  and  tlmt  the  dust  of  ages  has  not  been  w  iped  oif, 
in  the  course  of  centuries,  from  the  church  of  Christ.  As  time  rolls 
on,  and  society  improves,  the  chm'ch  is  maturing  in  ex])erience,  and 
has  higher  advantages  for  studjing  the  mind  of  Christ,  and  perceiving 
that  the  excellent  ones  of  the  earth  are  not  confined  to  any  one  deno- 
mination. —  Dr.  Gavin  Strutiiers  :  Paiiij  Spirit ;  in  Essays  on 
Christian  Union,  pp.  432-5. 

Even  whilst  not  thus  erring  as  to  ourselves,  we  may  err,  in  the  like 
spirit  of  sell'-exultiition,  as  to  our  spiritual  leaders,  our  religious  p;u-ties 
and  partisans,  and  our  chosen  models  of  Christian  perfection,  and  our 
human  standards  of  Christian  truth.  The  second  and  decUning  stiige 
in  the  history  of  every  great  religious  reformation  has  been  thus 
mai'ked.  In  the  first  and  purer  age,  the  true-hearted  leaders  forget 
self,  and  tliink  of  the  truth  only,  and  of  the  blaster,  and  ot  the  due 
\'indiciition  and  honor  of  these.  But,  m  the  next  generation,  the 
leaders  of 'the  generation  past  have  become  demigods,  and  must  liave 
their  funeral  monuments  erected  as  ha^•ing  become  morally,  to  their 
disciples,  the  new  Pillars  of  Hercules,  beyond  wliich  Truth  may  not 
travel,  nor  Kesearch  dare  to  pass  with  her  adventurous  foot.  .  .  .  We, 
of  this  land  where  New  li^ngland  has  borne  so  Lxrge  and  glorious  a 
share  in  leavening  the  national  character,  are  probably  in  some  danger 
of  idoUitrous  homajje  to  the  names  of  the  rurit;\n  Fathers.  It  is  so 
easy  and  so  common  an  infii-mity  to  let  the  priest  glide  from  the  altar, 
where  he  only  sei-ves,  into  the  very  shrine,  where  he  may  fill  the 
throne ;  to  make  the  spiritual  guide  virtually  the  spiritual  god,  imd  to 
treat  those  by  whom  we  have  believed  in  Christ  as  if  they  were  those 
in  whom  we  have  believed ;  and  we  thus  extol  and  guard  and  hallow 
their  names  instead  of  God's.  —  \Vm.  11.  WiLUAMS:  Ledurts  on  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  ])j).  42-3. 

§  3.  Blind  Attachment  to  Received  Oi-imons. 

Another  error  ...  is  a  conceit,  that,  of  former  opuiions  or  sects, 
after  variety  and  examination,  the  best  hath  still  jjrevailed,  and  sup 
presstd  the  rest;  so  as,  if  a  man  should  begin  the  labor  of  a  new 
search,  he  vifiw  like  to  light  upon  somewhat  formerly  rejected,  and  by 
rejection  l)rought  into  oblivion  :  as  if  the  multitude,  or  the  wisest,  for 
the  multitude's  sake,  were  not  ready  to  give  passage  rather  to  that 


IMPEDISIENTS  TO  THE   PURSUIT  OF  TRUTEI.  149 

which  is  popular  and  superficial  than  to  that  which  is  substantial  and 
profound.  For  the  truth  is,  that  time  seenieth  to  be  of  the  nature  of 
a  river  or  stream,  which  can-ieth  down  to  us  that  which  is  light  and 
blo^vn  uj),  and  sinlceth  and  di'owiieth  that  which  is  weighty  and  solid. 
—  Lord  Bacox  :  Advancement  of  Learning,  book  i. ;  in  Works,  vol.  L 
p.  173 ;  Phil.  edit.  1852. 

The  multitude  is  a  bad  guide  to  direct  our  faith.  We  Avill  not 
introduce  here  the  famous  controversy  on  this  question,  whether  a 
great  numl)er  form  a  presumption  in  favor  of  any  religion,  or  whether 
universality  be  a  certiiin  evidence  of  the  true  Christian  church.  How 
often  has  this  question  been  debated  and  determined !  How  often 
have  we  proved  against  one  community,  which  displays  the  number  of 
its  professors  with  so  much  jjarade,  that,  if  the  pretence  were  well 
founded,  it  would  operate  in  favor  of  Paganism!  for  Pagans  were 
always  more  nimiei'ous  than  Christians.  How  often  have  we  told  ' 
them,  that,  in  divers  periods  of  the  ancient  church,  idolatry  and  idola- 
ters have  been  enthroned  in  both  the  kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Israel ! 
How  often  have  we  alleged,  that,  in  the  time  of  Jesus  Christ,  the 
church  was  described  as  a  "  Httle  flock,"  Luke  xii.  32 ;  that  Heathens 
and  Jews  were  aU  in  league  against  Christianity  at  first,  and  that  the 
gospel  had  only  a  small  number  of  disciples  ! . . .  When  I  say  the  mul- 
titude is  a  bad  guide  in  mattei-s  of  faith,  I  mean  that  the  manner  in 
which  most  men  adhere  to  truth  is  not  by  ]3rinciples  which  ought  to 
attach  them  to  it,  but  by  a  spirit  of  neghgence  and  jDrejucUce.  — 
James  Saurix  :  Sermons,  vol.  ii.  pp.  28-9. 

Though  there  is  doubtless  a  certain  degree  of  weight  in  this  argu- 
ment [the  argument  in  fovor  of  the  Divinity  of  Chiist  founded  on  his 
promise  that  the  S])irit  of  truth  should  abide  for  ever  with  his  follow- 
ers], yet,  I  think,  Robinson  rests  too  much  upon  it,  and  repeats  it  too 
often ;  for  it  is  a  fact  not  less  certain  than  melancholy,  that  an  immense 
majority  of  Christians  (ex.  gr.  all  the  llussias,  all  the  Chi-istians  of  Asia, 
and  of  Africa,  and  of  South  America,  the  larger  and  more  populous 
portions  of  Poland  and  of  Germany,  nine-tenths  of  France,  and  all 
Spain,  Portugal,  Italy,  Sicily,  &c.  &c.)  have  been  given  up  to  the  most 
despicable  and  idolatrous  superstitions.  When  Christ  comes,  shall  he 
find  fixith  on  the  earth  ?  I  say  unto  you.  Nay.  —  S.  T.  COLERIDGE ; 
Literary  Remains ;  in  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  535. 

No  man  doubts  that  a  strictly  universal  consent  would  be  a  very 
strong  argument  indeed ;  but  then,  by  the  very  fact  of  its  being  dis- 
puted, it  ceases  to  be  imiversal,  and  general  consent  is  a  very  different 

13* 


150  IMPEDIMENTS  TO   THE    PURSUIT   OF   TRUTU. 

tiling  from  universal  It  becomes,  then,  the  consent  of  the  majority; 
and  we  must  examine  the  nature  of  the  minority,  and  also  tlie  peculiar 
nature  of  the  opinions  or  practices  a<^reed  in,  before  we  can  decide 
whether  general  consent  be  really  an  argument  for  or  against  the  truth 
of  an  opinion.  For  it  has  been  said,  "  Woe  unto  you  when  all  men 
shall  speak  well  of  you ; "  and  then  it  would  be  equalh'  true  of  such  a 
generation  or  generations,  that  it  was,  "  Woe  to  that  ojiinion  in  which 
all  men  agree."  —  Dr.  Thomas  Arnold  :  Lietter  156 ;  in  Life  and 
Corresponflence,  pp.  297-8. 

It  is  only  an  assum])tion,  that  universality  and  ubiquity  are  made 
the  tests  of  religious  doctrine.  No  univers;\lity  or  ubiquity  can  make 
that  divine  which  never  was  such.  It  is  a  mere  prejudice  of  veneration 
for  antiquity,  and  the  imposing  aspect  of  an  unanimous  acquiescence 
(if  unanimous  it  really  be)  which  makes  us  regard  that  as  truth  which 
comes  so  recommended  to  us.  Truth  is  rather  the  attribute  of  the 
few  than  of  the  many.  The  real  church  of  God  may  be  the  small 
remnant,  scarcely  visible  amidst  the  mass  of  surrounding  ])rofessors. 
Who,  then,  shall  pronounce  any  thing  to  be  dinne  truth,  simply  because 
it  has  the  marks  of  ha^^ng  been  generally  or  universally  received  among 
men  ?  —  Bishop  Hampden  :  Bampfon  Lectures,  p.  356. 


Except  tlie  prejudices  imbibed  in  early  years,  there  is  perliaps  no  influ- 
ence so  powerfully  affecting  tlie  belief  of  individuals,  as  that  resulting  from 
their  hitercourse  with  persons  who  hold,  or  who  profess  to  hold,  opinions 
of  an  luivarying  stamp,  especially  in  matters  of  religion ;  and  who  neither 
by  word  nor  action  ever  intimate  the  possibility  of  their  being  in  the  wrong. 
These  individuals  may,  at  one  period  of  their  lives,  have  been  led  by  satis- 
fiictory  evidence  to  take  views  of  truth  very  different,  as  a  whole,  from  those 
received  by  a  majority  of  their  fellow-Christians.  But  unless,  by  the  vigor 
of  their  understandings  or  by  a  reiterated  attention  to  the  groumls  of  their 
convictions,  they  can,  when  requisite,  summon  up  the  reasons  for  their  faith, 
they  will,  in  all  probability,  insensibly  and  gradually  yield  to  the  counter- 
acting impressions  made  by  the  unhesitating  credence  and  dogmatism  of  the 
majority  around  them.  F-ven  the  docility  of  their  dispositions,  which  fonned 
an  element  in  their  searchings  after  tnUh,  may  tend  to  loosen  tlieir  attach- 
ment to  opinions  coming  into  collision  with  the  general  current.  If  such  be 
the  effect  sometimes  produced  on  the  minds  of  those  who  are  not  wholly 
insensible  to  the  demands  of  a  faith  based  on  personal  investigation,  how 
potent  must  be  the  desire  on  the  part  of  others,  less  prone  to  inquiry,  to 
adopt  the  opinions  of  the  multitude! 

We  do  not  mean  to  imply,  that  the  voice  of  the  many  should  be  de- 
spised, when  it  is  uttered  from  strong  and  earnest  convictions.  It  may  lie 
the  echo  of  God's  voice  as  expressed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  in  the  heart  of 


IMPEDIMENTS   TO  THE   PURSUIT  OF   TRUTH.  151 

our  common  humanity.  There  is  a  presumption  in  its  favor,  when  it  speaks 
of  great  and  benignant  principles  underlying  all  forms  of  Christian  belief  and 
worship:  when  it  is  heard  alike  in  the  lofty  church  and  the  lowly  meeting- 
bouse;  in  the  meditations  of  the  mystic,  and  the  reasonings  of  the  rationalist; 
in  the  prayers  of  the  saint,  and  the  theories  of  the  philosopher;  in  the  con- 
verse of  the  Papist  and  the  Protestant,  of  the  Trinitarian  and  the  Unitarian. 
There  is  a  presumption  in  its  favor,  when  it  speaks  of  the  absolute  sove- 
reignty and  universal  love  of  the  infinite  Father;  of  the  impersonation  of 
divine  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness  in  the  mission  and  character  of  God's 
Son;  of  the  responsibleness  and  immortality  of  man;  of  the  slavery  and 
debasement  of  sin,  the  freedom  and  blessedness  of  holiness;  of  profound 
gratitude  and  submission  to  God,  deep  reverence  and  love  for  Christ,  kind 
words  and  good  offices  towards  all  men.  The  general  acknowledgment  of 
such  principles  and  doctrines,  though  more  or  less  obscured  by  inconsistent 
views  and  practices,  forms  a  presumption  for  their  essential  truth  which 
should  not  be  slighted  by  the  boldest  of  inquirers.  But  we  need  not  say, 
that  the  opinions  which  are  wafted  down  from  one  age  to  another,  —  which 
are  strewn  over  the  surface  of  society  and  the  church,  —  which  play  around 
the  human  brain,  but  do  not  reach  the  heart;  or  which,  if  principles  of 
action,  serve  only  as  stimuli  for  the  display  of  hostile  words  and  fanatio 
doings,  —  afford  no  primd-facie  evidence  of  having  truth  for  the  basis  on 
■which  they  rest.  , 

§  4.  Predilectioks  for  the  Mysterious. 

There  is,  in  truth,  a  -vitiated  appetite  in  our  nature  for  mystery  and 
terror.  We  are  disappointed  by  simplicity ;  we  nauseate  that  which 
is  common,  and  despise  every  thing  which  we  comprehend.  The 
languid  mind  must  gaze  at  something  in  the  distant  ground,  half 
visible,  half  in  shade ;  an  object  half  pleasing,  half  terrilile ;  full  of 
promise  and  full  of  threat,  lovely  and  hateful,  incongruous  and  impos- 
sible. We  are  so  desirous  of  involving  religion  in  mystery,  that  we 
are  displeased  at  finding  it  so  clear  in  its  nature,  and  so  definite  in  its 
object ;  we  reqiiire  a  more  splendid  and  magnificent  object ;  we  despise 
the  waters  of  Israel,  and  pant  for  Abana  and  Pharpar,  and  the  mighty 
rivers  of  Damascus.  —  Sydney  Smith  :  Sermons,  vol.  ii.  jip.  255-6. 

Pressed  by  the  arguments  urged  against  fleshly  A-iews  of  the  sacra- 
ment, intelligent  men,  who  still  cherish  such  views,  have,  for  the  most 
part,  betaken  themselves  to  a  jjlace  behind  the  veil  of  mystery.  "  The 
how  and  tchy  have  nothing  to  do,"  they  tell  us,  "  with  such  a  sacred 
and  awful  mystery.  Unbelief  in  it  is  jjrofane ;  calling  it  in  question 
is  presumptuous ;  doubting,  even  when  urged  to  do  so  by  reason  and 
^ur  senses,  is  criminaL"     This,  and  the  like,  has  been  and  is  still  said 


152  IMPEDIMENTS   TO   THE  PURSUIT  OF  TRUTH. 

until  the  bare  repetition  of  it  has  almost,  of  itself,  forced  it  upon  the 
minds  of  the  greater  mass  of  nominal  Christians.  ,  .  .  Such  suggestions 
are  the  usual  and  the  last  refuge  of  those  who  feel  that  they  are  driven 
from  the  field  of  reasoning  and  argument.  They  have  this  advantage, 
that  they  are  in  their  alleged  form  so  indefinite  and  airy,  that  jou  can- 
not easily  find  out  their  true  nature,  so  as  to  know  where  or  how  you 
tdxv  bring  forward  what  is  sensible  and  palpable  in  ojiposition  to  them. 
They  siilisfy  mjstics  better  than  argument  or  reason  would ;  because 
they  obviously  suit  that  trait  in  their  character  which  is  the  ])rc- 
dominating  and  influential  one.  Hence  the  final  retreat,  the  sanctum 
sanctorum  of  those  w^ho  have  fled  from  the  battle-fields  of  reason  and 
exegesis  and  argument,  is  always  found  to  be  in  mystery.  Procul, 
procul,  este  profani !  Meantime,  as  a  Protestant,  I  must  think  that 
it  becomes  us,  on  such  a  point,  to  be  able  to  give  a  reason  for  the 
faith  that  is  in  us.  No  outcry  of  this  nature  can  induce  a  man  of 
sober  judgment  to  abandon  his  position.  It  is  the  never-failing  resort 
of  those  who  have  nothing  better  to  say,  to  bet;ike  themselves  to  cry- 
ing out,  —  "  Mystery !  awful  mystery  !      It  Avould  be  jjrofimation  to 

make  even  an  attempt  at  investigation  or  explanation." Faith  — 

I  repeat  it,  1  woidd  God  it  might  sink  deep  into  every  Christian  heart ! 
—  faith  is  believing  what  is  revealed,  not  believing  what  is  unrcvealed 
and  impossible.  There  may  be  —  there  are  —  mysteries,  many  and 
great,  which  belong  to  things  and  truths  connected  ultimately  with 
the  gospel.  . .  .  But  no  true  gospel  mystery  involves  a  contnidicrion  or 
an  absurdity.  —  MosKS  Stuart,  in  Bibliotlieca  Sacra  for  May,  lbi-14; 
voL  i.  pp.  267-8  and  278-9. 

Sentiments  such  as  these,  though  spccisilly  ojiposed  to  tlie  doctrine  of 
Christ's  real  bodily  presence  in  the  Lord's  Supper, are  well  suited  to  exhibit 
the  influence,  in  general,  of  a  love  for  the  mystical  or  the  mysterious  in  fore- 
closing the  mind  against  all  appeals  to  reason,  and  a  rational  interpretation 
of  Scripture. 

I  should  not  deem  it  necessitry  to  say  more,  did  I  not  know  what 
is  the  mournful  effect  ujjon  the  liinnan  mind  of  being  trained  for  ages 
to  disregard  the  most  sacred  and  fuiuLmiental  intellectual  and  monil 
intuitions,  under  the  plea  of  faith  and  mystery.  The  mind  seems  to  be 
paralyzed  and  stunned,  as  if  it  had  tiecn  smitten  down  by  a  blow,  and' 
Ciinnot  again,  in  that  particular,  re-act  and  rally,  and  recover  the  use 
of  its  powers.  Such  an  effect  has  been  extensively  j)roduced  on  the 
human  mind  for  ages  by  this  result  of  the  discussion  under  Augustine  ,• 
for,  when  the  jilea  of  any  great  moral  or  intellectual  intuitions  has 


IMPEDIMENTS   TO  THE  PURSUIT   OF  TRUTH.  153 

6een  once  heard,  and,  after  long,  earnest,  and  full  debate,  rejected,  and 
the  course  of  thought  has  afterwards  rolled  on  in  disregard  of  them 
for  subsequent  centui-ies  under  the  guidance  of  ecclesiasti&d  authority, 
and  of  the  original  arguments,  in  one  deep  channel,  it  becomes  almost 
impossible  to  restore  the  human  mind  to  the  vantage-ground  on  which 
it  stood  when  the  original  conflict  began.  —  Dr.  Edward  Beecher  : 
Conflict  of  Ages,  pjj.  305-6. 

§  5.  Impatience  of  Doubt,  and  Aversion  to  Trouble. 

Another  eiTor  is  an  impatience  of  doubt,  and  haste  to  assertion 
without  due  and  mature  suspension  of  judgment.  For  the  two  ways 
of  contemplation  are  not  unlike  the  two  ways  of  action  commonly 
spoken  of  by  the  ancients  :  the  one  plain  and  smooth  in  the  beguining, 
and  in  the  end  impassable ;  the  other  rough  and  troublesome  in  the 
entrance,  but  after  a  while  fliir  and  even.  So  it  is  in  contemplation  : 
if  a  man  will  begin  with  certainties,  he  shall  end  in  doubts ;  but,  if  he 
will  be  content  to  begin  with  doubts,  he  shall  end  in  certainties.  — ■ 
Lord  Bacon  :  Advancement  of  Learning,  book  i. ;  in  Works,  vol.  L 
p.  173. 

Christianity  being  at  this  time  divided  into  several  sects,  whereof 
some  must  necessarily  be  in  an  error,  may  we  not  therefore  place  in 
the  number  of  t^he  lazy  those  persons  who,  full  of  all  other  things 
but  the  love  of  the  truth,  have  never  carefully  examined  which  of 
these  sects  is  most  conformable  to  the  sentiments  of  the  apostles? 
I  own  that  divers  other  motives  might  lead  them  to  remain,  without 
knowing  why  themselves,  in  that  party  wherein  they  happened  to  be 
bom,  and  to  condemn  all  others  without  vouchsafing  to  exiimine  their 
tenets ;  but,  if  you  remark  it  well,  it  will  appear  that  one  of  the  princi- 
ples which  occasion  tliis  conduct  is  a  certain  lazy  aversion  to  the  trouble 
of  searching  after  the  truth  in  matters  of  this  kind.  —  Le  Clerc  : 
Causes  of  Incredulity,  pp.  101-2,  Lond,  1697. 

Any  serious  employment  of  the  understanding  is  inconsistent  with 
habitual  indolence.  Discussion  and  inquiry  are  always  laborious.  Time 
and  patience  and  pains  are  necessary  to  se])arate  truth  from  falsehood, 
—  to  collect  and  to  compose  the  arguments  on  each  side.  Prejudices 
arising  from  temperj  from  education,  from  intei'est,  and  from  innu- 
merable other  causes,  are  not  easily  overcome ;  and,  when  a  \'cl\  of 
reason  breaks  through  them,  resolution  is  wanted  to  follow  steadily  its 
guidance :  and  yet  without  this  labor  we  forfeit  all  the  use  and  benefit 


154  IMPEDIMKXTS   TO   TUE   PUKSUIT  OF   TUUTU. 

df  our  understanding.  If  we  snatch  the  first  appearances,  and  sit 
dowTi  contented  with  them,  to  what  purpose  is  it  tliut  \\c  are  able  to 
investigate  hidden  truths  ?  What  avails  our  faculty  of  judging,  if  we 
sutier  each  thin  pretence  to  conceal  them  from  us?  It  might  be 
expected,  that  they  who  entertiiin  every  wandering  opinion  without 
examination  should  dismiss  it  without  regi-et  on  the  arrival  of  a  new 
guest.  But  the  flict  is  otherwise.  This  kind  of  le^•ity  is  attended 
with  obstinacy.  The  same  disjjosition  wliich  leads  men  into  error 
makes  them  miwilhng  to  correct  it :  a  state  of  doubtfulness  is  a  sUite 
of  uneasiness.  The  mind,  therefore,  hastens  to  the  end  of  its  journey; 
but  to  trace  its  steps  back  again,  and  examine  all  the  Anndings  by  which 
the  truth  may  have  escaped,  is  to  the  indolent  an  intolerable  labor.— 
Dr.  "William  Samuel  Powell  :  Discourses,  No.  I.  pp.  6,  7. 

Some  people  have  so  strong  a  propensity  to  form  fixed  opinions  on 
every  subject  to  wliich  they  turn  their  thouglits,  tliat  their  mind  will 
brook  no  dcLiy.  They  cannot  bear  to  doubt  or  hesitiite.  Su^,  cnse 
in  judging  is  to  them  more  insufferable  than  the  manifest  haxird  of 
judging  WTong ;  and  therefore,  when  they  have  not  sufficient  evidence, 
they  will  form  an  opinion  from  what  tliey  have,  be  it  ever  so  little ;  or 
even  from  their  own  conjectures,  without  any  evidence  at  all.  Now,  to 
beheve  without  proper  evidence,  and  to  doubt  when  we  have  evidence 
suificient,  are  equally  the  effects,  not  of  the  strength,  but  of  the  weak- 
ness, of  the  understiuiding.  —  Dr.  George  C.vmpbell  :  The  Four 
Gospels,  Diss.  xii.  part  v.  sect.  9. 

There  is  a  strong  tendency  in  human  nature  to  save  itself  fi-ora  the 
trouble  of  inquiry  and  the  uneasiness  of  doubt.  We  do  not  like  to  be 
left  for  a  moment  in  uncerbiinty  or  suspense ;  we  are  impatient  of  the 
kl)or  of  examining  things  for  ourselves ;  we  ;u-e  alarmed  at  the  danger 
of  misUdce,  and  uneasy  under  the  sense  of  personal  rcsponsil)ility ; 
and  so  we  are  disposed  beforehand  to  accept  a  guide  in  religion,  who 
shall  constantly  claim  the  power  of  conducting  us  with  unerring  skill, 
and  who  shall  tell  us  that  we  have  nothing  to  do  but  follow  him.  — 
Archbishop  Wiiately  :  Cautions  for  tfie  Times,  p.  103. 

We  make  sweeping  assertions,  disposing  of  whole  classes  of  sulijecta 
at  a  word,  or  we  talce  a  general  ])rincljjle  wliich  is  jjerhaps  true  in  tlifi 
main,  and  Girry  it  out  to  extremes,  to  which  it  cannot  fairly  extend. 
We  do  this  either  from  the  infiuence  of  an  almost  universiil  tendency 
of  tlMJ  human  mind  to  love  sweejiing  generalities,  or  else  because  it  is 
trouI)lesome  to  pause  and  reflect,  and  ascertain  excejitions.  In  fact,  a 
rellecting  man  will  often  detect  liimself  believing  a  proposition  mei'ely 


IMPEDIMENTS   TO   THE  PDRSUIT  OF  TRUTH.  155 

because,  ^hen  expressed,  it  sounds  antithetic  and  striking,  or  because 
it  is  comprehensive  and  distinct,  and,  right  or  wrong,  presents  a  con- 
veiiient  solutiou  for  whole  classes  of  difficulties.  The  human  mind 
will,  in  a  word,  run  into  almost  any  belief,  by  which  it  may  be  saved 
the  labor  of  patient  thought,  and  at  the  same  time  avoid  the  mortifica- 
tion of  acknowledging  its  ignorance.  —  JACOB  AliBOTT :  The  Corner- 
Ktoiie,  p.  302. 

§  6.  Party  Spikit  and  Personal  Interest. 

Another  great  cause  of  confidence  in  false  conceits  is  the  bias  of 
some  personal  interest  prevaihng  with  a  corrupted  will,  and  the  mix- 
ture of  sense  and  passion  in  the  judgment.  For  as  interested  men 
hardly  believe  what  seemeth  against  them,  and  easily  believe  that 
which  thej'  would  have  to  be  true ;  so  sense  and  passion,  or  affections, 
usually  so  bear  do\vn  reason  that  they  think  it  their  right  to  possess 
the  throne.  — -  RiciiARD  Baxter  :  Knowledge  and  Love  Compared ; 
in  Practical  Works,  vol.  xv.  pp.  157-8. 

Self-conceit .  . .  promotes  indolence  and  obstinacy.  For  why  should 
he  toil  any  longer  in  the  mines  of  knowledge  who  is  already  possessed 
of  their  most  valuable  treasures  ?  how  can  he  submit  to  try  his  opinions 
by  the  judgment  of  others  who  is  himself  the  fittest  to  decide  ?  This 
teirper,  when  the  mind  is  conversant  with  points  of  the  highest  natxire, 
Buoli  as  relate  to  religion  and  government,  \n\\  shoAv  itself  in  violent 
bigotry.  "What  indeed  is  this,  but  an  obstinate  adherence  to  iil- 
grounded  notions ;  with  a  conceit,  that  we  only,  and  those  of  oiu*  Ofm 
sect  or  party,  are  the  favorites  of  God  and  the  friends  of  mankind,  and 
that  aJJ  who  differ  from  us  are  weak  or  wicked  ?  Want  of  industry  to 
examine  our  own  tenets,  of  candor  to  listen  to  those  of  others,  and  of 
modesty  in  judging  of  both,  lays  a  sure  foundation  for  this  vice ;  which 
car  never  be  removed  but  by  another  thing  equally  wanted,  an  exten- 
sive acquaintance  with  the  world.  This  would  certainly  con\ince  us, 
that  among  persons  of  every  denomination  some  may  be  found  of 
excellent  understandings  and  distinguished  wtue.  —  Dr.  William 
Samufx  Powell  :  Discourses,  No.  I.  p.  8. 

When  a  strong  prejudice  against  any  description  of  persons  is 
deeply  rf>oted  in  the  general  body  of  a  people,  and  both  their  under^ 
BtaiidJngs  and  their  feelings  are  inveterately  con\-inced  of  its  justice, 
the  err..ri.kation  of  it  requires  length  of  time :  no  powers  of  reason  or 
eloquence  cm  remove  it  on  a  sudden,  or  e\en  w'thout  incessant  ro{)e« 


lub  XKTEI.IJEENTS  TO   THE   VUrvSDIT  OF  TROTH. 

tition  of  effort.  This  is  particularly  the  case  in  all  qiicstiona  of  a 
coinpb'axted  nature,  'jjion  which  tiie  ff-elings  and  jxissions  of  nic-n  luve 
been  long  and  violently  agitated,  and  both  religious  and  poliTical  par- 
ties have  been  deeply  engaged-  —  CuAiiLES  BoTLER :  Iteminiscenccs, 
page  277. 

Truth  and  en-or,  as  they  are  essentially  opposite  in  their  nature,  so 
the  CiUises  to  which  they  are  indebted  for  their  perpetuity  and  triumph 
are  not  less  so.  "\\'Tiatever  retards  a  spirit  of  inquiry  is  favorable  to 
error ;  whatever  promotes  it,  to  truth.  But  nothing,  it  will  be 
acknowledged,  has  a  greater  tendency  to  obstruct  the  exercise  of  free 
inquiry,  than  the  spu"it  and  feeling  of  a  party.  Let  a  doctrine,  however 
erroneous,  become  a  party  distinction,  and  it  is  at  once  intrenched 
in  interests  and  attachments  which  make  it  extremely  difficult  for  the 
most  powerful  artillery  of  reason  to  dislodge  it.  It  becomes  a  point  of 
honor  in  the  leaders  of  such  parties,  which  is  from  thence  communiciited 
to  their  followers,  to  defend  and  sujiport  their  respective  pecuUarities  to 
the  last  J  and,  as  a  natural  consequence,  to  shut  their  ears  against  all  tlie 
pleas  and  remonstrances  by  which  they  ai-e  assailed.  Even  the  wisest 
and  best  of  men  are  seldom  aware  how  much  they  are  susceptible  r>f  this 
sort  of  inHuence ;  and  wliile  the  offer  of  a  world  would  be  insuificient  to 
engiige  them  to  rec;xnt  a  luiown  truth,  or  to  subscribe  an  acknowledged 
error,  they  are  often  retiiined  in  a  willing  captivity  to  prejudices  and 
opinions  which  have  no  other  support,  and  wliich,  if  they  could  lose 
sight  of  party  feelings,  they  would  almost  instimtly  abandon.  ...  it  is 
this  alone  which  has  ensured  a  sort  of  immortivlity  to  those  hideous 
productions  of  the  human  mind,  the  sha])eless  abortions  of  night  and 
diirkness,  which  reason,  left  to  itself,  would  have  crushed  in  the  nK^ment 
of  their  birth.  —  RoBKRT  Hall  :  Teniis  of  Coinmunio7i ;  in  fVorks, 
voL  i.  p.  3o2. 

^  7.  The  Sieculatioxsok  Vanity  a.nd  tiik  Love  of  Sixgulauity. 

Such  as  reject  sentiments  generally  received,  or  at  least  received 
t)y  a  great  number  of  persons,  should  tiike  care  that  the  love  of  singu- 
larity, rather  than  a  demonstration  that  others  are  mistiiken,  has  niaJe 
tliem  quit  the  beaten  road.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  tl-.e  mnllitude  of 
those  who  embrace  a  cerUxin  opinion  is  not  a  good  ])roof  of  I'i.e  truih 
of  it;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  no  cogent  argument  that  \  thing 
i8  false  because  many  people  believe  iL  —  Li:  C'LiiUC :  CaiU'is  of 
liiatdxd'Uij,  p.  30. 


IMPEDIMENTS   TO   THE   PURSUIT  OF   TRUTH.  157 

Men  there  are  who,  in  matters  of  doctrine,  suffer  themselves  to  be 
carried  away  by  every  idle  blast ;  who  catch  at  this  or  that  opinion, 
because  it  has  the  gloss  of  novelty ;  who  are  seduced  from  the  sound 
form  of  religion  by  artful  or  violent  fanatics,  recommending  their  own 
peculiar  dogmas  upon  the  ground  of  superior  sanctity  in  the  teacher 
and  the  feiught ;  and  while  from  one  part  of  human  infu-mity,  in  the 
precipitation  with  which  such  notions  have  been  once  embraced,  we  have 
another  instance  of  the  same  infirmity  manifested  in  the  pertinacity 
with  which  they  ai-e  retained.  These  misguided  men  are  watchful 
indeed  against  the  smallest  enci'oachments  of  common  sense.  They 
stiind  fast  in  opposing  assumption  to  argument,  and  ideal  experiences 
to  the  general  moral  sentiments  and  habits  of  theii*  fellow-creatures 
and  fellow-Christians.  They  quit  themselves  like  dogmatists  too 
illuminated  to  be  instructed,  and  like  zealots  too  impetuous  to  be 
restrained.  .  .  .  Fondness  for  novelty  engenders  at  first  versatihty  in 
belief;  that  versatility  is  followed  by  ambition  of  singularity ;  that 
ambition  is  increased  by  sympathy  with  other  men,  whom  we  consider 
not  as  rivals,  but  associates  in  the  common  pursuit  of  spiritual  dis- 
tinction from  the  bulk  of  mankind.  By  the  co-operation  of  these 
causes,  pride  and  flmaticism  gradually  gain  an  entii'e  ascendency  over 
the  affections  and  the  judgment,  which  soon  become  ductile  to  them; 
and  by  various  progressions  they  ultimately  produce  an  inveterate  and 
in'.dncible  rigidity  in  ojjinion,  a  contemptuous  aversion  to  farther  in- 
quiry, a  restless  impatience  of  dissent  however  modest,  and  discussion 
however  sober.  Most  assuredly  such  a  state  of  mind  has  no  encourage- 
ment from  Scripture,  where  we  are  directed  to  prove  all  things,  and 
cleave  to  that  which  after  such  proof  is  jjerceived  to  be  good ;  to  be 
on  the  watch  against  rash  and  deceitful  teachers ;  to  stand  fast  in  the 
sound  form  of  doctrine  once  delivered  to  true  l^elievers  ;  to  qnit  our- 
selves like  men  who  disdain  to  be  the  blind  followers  of  blind  guides ; 
to  be  strong  in  resisting  every  attempt  to  seduce  us  from  those  simple 
and  sut)lime  truths  which  are  alike  ai)proved  by  reason,  and  sanctioned 
by  revelation.  —  Dr.  Samuel  Parr  :  Sermon  on  Resolution ;  in 
Works,  vol.  vi.  ])]).  332-4. 

Nor  is  a  mind  inflated  with  vanity  more  disqualified  for  right  action 
than  just  speculation,  or  better  disposed  to  the  pursmt  of  truth  than 
the  practice  of  virtue.  To  such  a  mind  the  simplicity  of  tioith  is 
disgusting.  Careless  of  the  imjirovemcnt  of  mankind,  and  intent 
only  I'  pon  astonishing  with  the  appearance  of  novelty,  the  glare  of 
jxiradux  will   be  preferred  to  the   light  of  ti-uth;    opinions  will  be 

14 


158  LMPEDIMENTS  TO   TIIE   PURSUIT  OF  TRUTH. 

embraced,  not  because  they  are  just,  but  because  they  are  new :  the 
more  flagitious,  the  more  subversive  of  morals,  the  more  alarming  to 
the  wise  and  good,  the  more  welcome  to  men  who  estimate  their 
literary  powers  by  the  mischief  they  produce,  and  who  consider  the 
anxiety  and  terror  they  impress  as  the  measure  of  their  renown.  — 
Robert  Hall  :  Modern  hifidelity  Considered ;  in  Works,  voL  L 
page  33. 

§  8.  The  Dkead  of  Contempt  and  Ridicule. 

Pride  makes  men  ashamed  of  the  service  of  God,  in  a  time  and 
place  Avhore  it  is  disgraced  by  the  world ;  and,  if  it  have  dominion, 
Christ  and  holiness  shall  be  denied  or  forsaken  by  them,  rather  than 
their  honor  with  men  shall  be  forsaken.  If  they  come  to  Jesus,  it  is, 
as  Nicodemus,  by  night.  They  are  ashamed  to  o^\ti  a  rejiroached 
truth,  or  scorned  cause,  or  servant  of  Christ.  If  men  will  but  mock 
them  with  the  nicknames  or  calumnies  hatched  in  hell,  they  will  do  as 
others,  or  forbear  their  duty.  —  Richard  B.AXTER  :  Christian  Direct- 
ory ;  in  Practical  JVorks,  vol.  iii.  p.  23. 

A  system  may  be  thrown  into  discredit  by  the  fanaticism  and  folly 
of  some  of  its  advocates,  and  it  may  be  long  before  it  emerges  from 
the  contempt  of  a  precipitate  and  unthinking  public,  ever  ready  to 
follow  the  impulse  of  her  former  recollections ;  it  may  be  long  before 
it  is  reclamed  from  obscm-ity  by  the  eloquence  of  future  defenders ; 
and  there  may  be  the  struggle  and  the  perseverance  of  many  years 
before  the  existing  association,  with  all  its  train  of  obloquies  and  dis« 
gusts  and  j)rcjudices,  shall  be  overthrown.  A  lover  of  truth  is  thus 
placed  on  the  right  field  for  the  exercise  of  his  principles.  It  is  the 
field  of  his  faith  and  of  his  patience,  and  in  which  he  is  called  to  a 
manly  encounter  with  the  enemies  of  his  cause.  He  may  have  much 
to  bear,  and  little  but  the  mere  force  of  jM-inciple  to  sust<iin  him.  But 
what  a  noble  exliil)ition  of  mind,  when  this  force  is  enough  for  it ; 
when,  though  unsujjported  by  the  sympathy  of  other  minds,  it  can 
rest  on  the  truth  .and  righteousness  of  its  own  ])rincij)le;  when  it 
can  select  its  object  from  among  the  thousiuid  ent;mglements  of  error, 
and  keej)  by  it  amidst  all  the  ckmors  of  hostiUty  and  contempt; 
when  all  the  terrors  of  disgrace  cannot  akrm  it ;  when  all  the  levities 
of  ridicule  cannot  shame  it ;  when  all  the  scowl  of  ojjposition  cannot 
ovcrwlu'hn  it !  Tliere  are  some  very  fine  examples  of  such  a  contest, 
and  of  such  a  triumph,  in  the  history  of  philosophy.  .  .  .  When  Sir 


niPEDIMENTS  TO   THE   PURSUIT  OF   TRUTH.  159 

Isaac  Newton's  theory  of  gra\itatIon  was  announced  to  the  world,  if  it 
had  not  the  persecution  of  violence,  it  had  at  least  the  persecution  of 
contempt  to  struggle  with.  .  .  .  This  kept  it  for  a  time  from  the  chaiis 
and  universities  of  Europe ;  and  for  years  a  kind  of  obscure  and  ignoble 
sectarianism  was  annexed  to  that  name  which  has  been  carried  do\vn 
on  such  a  tide  of  glory  to  distant  ages.  Let  us  think  of  tliis,  when 
philosophers  bring  their  names  and  their  authority  to  bear  upon  us, 
when  they  pour  contempt  on  the  truth  which  we  love,  and  on  the 
system  which  we  defend ;  and,  as  they  fasten  their  epithets  upon  us, 
let  us  take  comfort  in  thinking  that  we  are  under  the  very  ordeal 
through  which  philosophy  herself  had  to  j)ass,  before  she  achieved  the 
most  splendid  of  her  victories.  —  Dr.  Thomas  Chalmers  :  Select 
Worlis,  vol.  iv.  p.  222. 

This,  too,  is  the  ordeal  through  which  Unitirianism  has  passed,  and  is 
still,  in  some  measure,  passing.  This  is  the  ordeal  through  which  have 
passed  the  adherents  of  the  great  doctrine  which  confessedly  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  all  true  religion,  whether  natural  or  revealed;  and  which,  in 
spite  of  a  narrow  dogmatism  and  a  crude  metaphysics,  is  more  or  less 
recognized  by  all  Christian  churches.  The  believers  in  the  strict  Oneness 
of  the  Divine  Being,  of  the  unrivalled  Supremacy  of  the  infinite  Father, 
have  been  subjected  to  every  species  of  contempt  and  persecution.  Their 
learning  has  been  despised;  their  characters  have  been  traduced;  their 
motives  maligned;  their  names  associated  with  irreverence,  impiety,  and 
infidelity.  But  all  this  obloquy,  though  certainly  presenting  no  evidence  for 
the  truth  of  their  doctrine,  affords,  at  the  same  time,  as  little  ground  for  re  ■ 
garding  it  as  erroneous.  It  sliould  be  tried  by  its  own  merits ;  judged  of  by 
its  harmony  or  its  dissonance  with  the  principles  of  reason  and  revelation; 
and  a  decision  be  made  of  its  truth  or  of  its  falsity,  uninfluenced  by  the  ful- 
minations  of  bigotry,  by  the  sneers  of  a  cold  indifference,  or  by  the  clamors 
and  prejudices  of  an  unthinking  people. 

Men  are  often  kept  in  error,  not  because  they  have  anj^-  sjjecial 
objection  to  the  trutli  itself,  or  to  the  practical  consequences,  in  general, 
which  result  from  it,  but  because  they  are  unwilUng  to  acknowledge 
that  they  have  been  in  the  wrong.  A  man  who  has  always  been  on 
one  side,  and  is  so  universally  regarded,  cannot  admit  that  he  has  been 
mistaken,  without  feeUng  mortification  himself,  and  exciting  the  ill-will 
of  others.  Light,  however,  comes  in,  which  he  secretly  perceives  is 
sufficient  to  show  him  that  he  has  been  wrong ;  but  he  turns  his  eye 
away  from  it,  because  he  instinctively  feels  what  must  inevitably  follow 
from  its  admission.  —  Jacob  ABBorr :  The  Corner-stone ;  or,  a  Fami- 
liar Illustration  of  the  Principles  of  Christian  Truth,  p.  29G 


IGO  IMPEDIMENTi   TO   TliJi  PURSUIT   OF   TRUTH. 

§  9.  The  Influence  of  a  Pkoud,  Empty,  Sectarian  Criticism. 

.  Men  of  high  station  in  the  church,  and  of  high  reputation  for  know* 
ledge,  should  be  cautious  in  what  terms,  and  before  what  K»iarers,  they 
pass  sentence  upon  books  which  they  professedly  do  not  deign  to  read. 
A  specious  criticism,  begotten,  it  may  be,  by  ni-shness  upon  prejudice, 
and  fostered  by  vanity  or  ill-nature,  as  soon  as  it  was  produced,  —  a 
random  conjecture,  suddenly  struck  out  in  the  conflicts  of  literary 
conversation,  —  a  sprightly  effusion  of  wt,  forgotten  perhaps  by  the 
sjjeaker  the  moment  after  it  was  uttered,  —  a  sly  and  impertuient  sneer, 
intended  to  convey  more  tlian  was  expressed,  and  more  than  could  be 
proved,  may  liave  very  injurious  effects  upon  the  reputation  of  a  WTiter. 
I  suspect,  too,  that  these  effects  are  sometimes  designedly  produced  by 
critics,  who,  finding  the  easy  reception  given  to  their  own  opinions, 
prefer  the  pride  of  decision  to  the  toil  of  inquiry.  The  remarks  of  such 
men  are  eagerly  caught  up  by  hearers  who  are  incapable  of  forming  for 
themselves  a  right  judgment,  or  desirous  of  supporting  an  unfavorable 
judgment  by  the  sanction  of  a  great  name.  They  are  triumphantly 
repeated  in  promiscuous,  and  sometimes,  I  fear,  even  in  Hterary  assem- 
blies, and,  like  other  calumnies,  during  a  long  and  irregukr  course 
they  swell  in  bulk,  without  losing  any  portion  of  their  original  maUg- 
nity.  —  Dr.  Samuel  Parr :  Dedication  to  ffarburtonian  Tracts;  in 
Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  387. 

Our  theology  may  be  greatly  improved  by  encouraging  among  our 
scholars  more  freedom  and  candor  of  criticism.  We  have  long  been 
dissatisfied  witli  the  manner  in  which  the  criticixl  department  of  our 
Uterature  is  conducted.  Our  theologicivl  criticism,  especiidly,  ought  to 
be  governed  by  well-estiiblished  and  sure  principles,  and  to  breathe  a 
spirit  of  the  utmost  candor.  It  ouglit  to  love  the  truth  more  tluui  the 
canons  or  the  sjTnbols.  Its  reverence  for  the  dead  ought  not  to  exceed 
the  limits  of  sound  reason,  nor  should  its  tenderness  to  the  U\ing 
hazard  the  interests  of  science.  It  ought  to  rise  above  piu'ty  sympa- 
thies, al)ove  popular  prejudice.  But  it  is  only  a  small  part  of  our 
theologi&il  criticism  which  is  reguLited  by  these  principles.  We  have 
many  i)arties  in  theology,  and  each  school  is  inchned  to  extol  the 
writings  of  its  own  partistuis,  and  to  depreciate  the  productions  of  its 
opponents.  There  is  more  severity  of  criticism  with  us  than  with  the 
luu-d-ncrved  disputants  of  Germany ;  but  it  is  severity  against  tiiose 
from  whom  we  are  separated  by  party  Unes.  There  is  more  aduLition 
of  authors  in  tliis  country  than  in  lliat  land  of  authors ;  but  il   is  tlie 


IMPEDIMENTS   TO  TIIE   PURSUIT  OF   TRUTU.  iGl 

adulation  of  those  who  are  hemmed  in  with  us  by  the  same  sectuian 
limits.  Like  our  politic;xl  editors  and  orators,  we  are  too  mucli  dis- 
posed to  speak  only  well'  of  him  that  is  with  us,  —  only  ill  of  him  that 
is  against  us:  the  flattery  is  too  fulsome,  the  censm-e  too  unsjjaring. 
It  is  rare  that  we  find  a  truly  dispassionate  and  unbiassed  criticism, 
dispensing  praise  and  blame  where  it  is  deserved,  without  fear  and 
Anthout  favor,  without  bitterness  and  without  partialitj-.  It  is  by  no 
means  easy  to  determine'  the  exact  value  of  a  work  from  any  review 
of  it  which  is  given  in  some  of  our  religious  jom-nals ;  so  much  allow- 
ance are  we  compelled  to  make  for  party  predilections,  so  much  severity 
are  we  called  upon  to  mitigate,  so  much  adulatiou-to  qualify.  Now, 
we  ought  to  have  candor  enough,  indej)endence  enough,  enough  of  the 
liberal  s])irit  of  true  learning,  to  rise  above  so  narrow  and  baneful  a 
polic)',  and  to  redeem  the  character  of  our  national  criticism  from  the 
extravagance  both  of  flattery  and  of  sarcasm,  which  lias  so  generally 
been  objected  against  us.  If  criticism  is  to  hold  any  valuable  place  in 
subser\-iency  to  theological  science,  it  must  be  more  liberal,  more  dis- 
criminating, more  moderate  in  its  sectarian  partialities,  more  faithfiJ 
to  the  spu-it  of  sound  scholarsliip  and  fraternal  sj-mpathy.  —  Bihlio' 
theca  Sacra  for  JVovember,  1844 ;  voL  i.  pp.  753-4. 

With  much  pleasure  we  make  the  preceding  extract,  taken  from  an 
excellent  article,  prepared  by  a  society  of  clergymen,  on  "  the  State  of 
Theological  Science  and  Education  in  our  Country."  In  the  present  age, 
when  the  pulpit  has,  both  for  good  and  evil,  lost  so  much  of  its  former  power, 
and  the  press  is  the  main  insti-ument  employed  in  influencing  the  public 
mind,  we  know  of  nothing  more  detrimental  to  catholicity  of  spirit  and  the 
love  of  truth  among  the  people  than  that  narrowness  of  soul,  on  the  part  of 
editors,  which,  by  its  withering  scowl  on  all  that  is  excellent  out  o(  its  own 
pale,  would  prevent  the  readers  of  a  professedly  religious  journal  from 
perusing  any  work  that  bears  not  the  stamp  of  a  prevalent  and  a  stereo 
typed  orthodoxy.  Truth  is  divine,  wherever  found,  —  in  friend  or  foe;  and 
it  should  be  the  delight  of  the  Clu-istian  critic  to  separate  it  from  the  error 
with  which  it  may  be  blended,  and  to  exhibit  its  beauty  and  holiness, 
without  any  bigoted  regards  to  his  own  particular  form  of  theological  specu- 
lation. 

^  10.  The  Seductkins  of  Feeling  and  Imagination,  of  iMPitEssioNa 
AND  Passions. 

Sometimes  a  strong,  deluded  imagination  maketh  men  exceeding 
confident  in  error,  —  some  by  melancholy,  and  some  by  a  natin~al 
weakness  of  reason,  and  strength  of  fanta.sy ;  and  some,  by  misappre- 

14» 


162  IMPEDIMENTS  TO   THE  PURSUIT  OF  TRUTH. 

hensions  in  religion,  grow  to  think  that  ever}'  strong  conceit  which 
doth  but  come  in  suddenly,  at  reading,  or  hearing,  or  thinking  on 
Buch  a  text,  or  m  time  of  earnest  prayer,  especially  if  it  deeply  aftect 
themselves,  is  certainly  some  suggestion  or  inspiration  of  God's  Sni- 
rit.  —  RiciLVRD  B.VXTER :  Knowledge  and  Love  Compared,  voL  xv. 
page  158. 

Those  who  are  subject  to  the  command  of  their  o\vn  affections 
judge  more  according  to  the  mclinations  of  them  than  to  the  dictates 
of  riglit  reason.  He  that  espouses  a  party  or  interest,  that  loves  an 
opinion,  and  desires  it  should  be  true,  easily  ai)proves  of  whatsoever 
does  but  seem  to  make  for  it,  and  rejects,  almost  at  all  adventurps, 
whatsoever  appears  against  it  How  does  the  hope  and  desire  of  honor 
or  favor  or  fortune  in  the  world  cai-ry  men  away  to  the  A-ilest  things  for 
the  prosecution  of  it !  And  so  all  the  other  jxussions  of  the  mind, 
whether  it  be  fear  or  pleasure,  or  whatever  else  be  the  aifection  tliat 
rules  us :  they  hinder  the  reason  from  judging  aright,  and  weighing 
impartially  what  is  delivered  to  us ;  and  it  is  great  odds  but  such  an 
auditor  receives  or  condemns  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  not  according  as 
the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  e^idence  of  right  reason 
,  require  he  shoidd,  but  as  his  o\^ii  passions  and  mclinations  prompt  him 
to  do!  —  Archbishop  W.\Ive:  Sermons  and  Discourses,  pp.  17-19. 

To  assign  a  feeling  and  a  determination  of  will,  as  a  satisfactory 
reason  for  embracing  or  rejecting  this  or  that  opinion  or  belief,  is  of 
ordinary  occurrence,  and  sure  to  obtain  the  sympathy  and  the  suffrages 
of  the  company.  And  yet  to  me  this  seems  little  less  irrational  than 
to  ajjply  the  nose  to  a  picture,  and  to  decide  on  its  genuineness  by  the 
sense  of  smelL  —  S.  T.  Coleridge  :  ^ids  to  Reflection ;  iti  Works, 
vol.  i.  p.  119. 

It  is  perfectly  notorious  that  the  great  mass  of  those  who  adopt 
even  the  purest  forms  of  faith  adopt  it  without  any  rational  e^^amina- 
tion  of  evidence,  whether  of  natural  or  revealed  truth.  The  apjieal 
to  natural  imjjressions,  however  just  in  itself,  throws  no  light  whatever 
on  the  real  question  at  issue,  which  concerns  not  what  men  are  led  to 
believe,  l)ut  the  rational  evidence  on  which  they  believe  it ;  not  what 
are  the  natural  impressions,  but  how  and  why  they  should  be  imjjressed. 
And  this  more  es])ecially  with  reference  to  the  analysis  of  our  own 
connctions,  and  the  searching  inquiry  which  we  ought  to  make  into 
the  grounds  of  our  own  belief,  with  all  the  light  and  information  we 
possess,  in  order  that,  on  the  most  vitally  important  of  all  subjects, 
those  convictions  should  be  guarded  by  none  but  the  most  secure 


IMPEDIMENTS   TO   THE   PURSUIT   OF   TRUTH.  1  63 

arguments,  and  repose  on  none  but  the  most  unassailable  foundations. 
But  the  majority  of  those  who  decry  this  kind  of  inquiry  do  so  upon 
a  more  specific  ground  of  faith.  They,  in  fiict,  discard  all  idea  oi 
reasoning  upon  the  subject.  They  look  to  a  pecuUar  kind  of  impres- 
sion upon  the  soul,  neither  to  be  reasoned  upon  nor  resisted.  In  this 
their  wliole  apprehension  of  the  Deity  is  made  to  consist.  Thus  all 
philosopliical  proof  is  useless,  and  even  diingerous ;  all  exercise  of  the 
intellect  on  such  a  subject  is  at  variance  with  the  demands  of  a  time- 
faith.  With  those  who  entertain  such  persuasions,  it  is  of  course  vain 
to  dispute.  Discarding  reason,  they  are  insensible  to  fallacies  in 
argument.  —  Baden  Powell  :  Connection  of  JVatural  and  Divine 
Truth,  pp.  222-3. 

[1]  It  is  quite  certain  that  most  men  are  disposed  to  believe  or 
disbeheve  according  to  their  N^ishes.  Even  the  Avisest  men  are  not 
exempt  from  this  bias  of  the  judgment,  unless  they  are  carefully  on 
theii*  guard  against  it ;  and  the  generality  may  be  observed  on  many 
occasions  mustering  every  argument  they  can  thinlv  of  to  persuade 
themselves  of  the  truth  of  wliat  is  agreeable,  and  raising  every  objec- 
tion agixinst  any  thing  which  they  do  not  like  to  believe 

[2]  There  are  persons  .  .  .  who,  in  supposed  compUance  mth  the 
precept,  "  Lean  not  to  thine  own  understanding,"  regard  it  as  a  duty 
to  suppress  all  exercise  of  the  intellectual  powers,  in  every  case  where 
the  feehngs  are  at  variance  with  the  conclusions  of  reason.  They 
deem  it  right  to  "  consult  the  heart  more  than  the  head ; "  i.  e.  to 
surrender  themselves,  adAdsedly,  to  the  bias  of  any  prejudice  that  may 
chance  to  be  jjresent :  tlius,  deliberately  and  on  principle,  burying  in 
the  earth  the  talent  entrusted  to  them,  and  hiding  under  a  bushel  the 
candle  that  God  has  lighted  up  in  the  mind.  ...  I  am  far  from 
recomnlending  presumptuous  inquiries  into  things  beyond  the  reach 
of  our  faculties,  attempts  to  be  "  wise  above  what  is  written,"  or 
groundless  confidence  in  the  cerfciinty  of  oiu-  conclusions.  But  we 
cannot  even  exercise  the  requisite  humility  in  acquiescing  in  revealed 
doctrines,  unless  we  employ  our  reason  to  ascerbiin  what  they  are ; 
and  there  is  surely  at  least  as  much  presumption  in  measuring  every 
thing  by  our  own  feehngs,  passions,  and  prejudices,  as  by  oiu*  own 
reasonings.  —  Archbishop  Whately. 

That  portion  of  Dr.  Wiiately's  remarks  numbered  [1]  is  taken  from 
"Sermons  on  Various  Subjects,"  p.  318;  that  which  is  numbered  [2], 
from  "  Es;;ays  ou  the  Difficulties  in  St.  Paul's  Writings,"  Essay  I.  \  3, 
Dp-  24-5 


164  IMPEDIMENTS  TO   THE   PURSUIT   OF   TRUTH. 


§  11.  IIiNKUAxcEs  iji  General. 

There  is,  in  many  minds,  a  native  and  almost  invincible  prepossession 
in  favor  of  all  that  is  accredited,  or  ancient,  or  associated  with  dignity 
and  high  stiition.  It  may  be  a  physicil  projjensity;  it  may  be  an 
intellectual  weakness ;  it  may  be  a  moral  sentiment,  estimable  and 
\-irtuous  in  its  affinities,  but  in  itself  unintelligent,  and  liable  to  much 
perversion.  There  is  in  others  a  contempt  of  authority,  —  a  fierce 
independency  of  action,  —  wliich  may  be  equally  injurious,  when  carried 
to  excess.  .  .  .  There  is  a  constitutional  churchniansliip,  and  there  is 
a  constitutional  sectarianism  ;  and  they  are  both  equally  contemptible 
and  worthless.  Our  business  is  to  preserve  the  habits  of  our  mind,  to 
the  Last  practicable  extent,  free  from  the  perversions  of  either  ckss, 
and  to  follow  truth  alone  wherever  it  may  lead  us ;  making  candid 
allowance  for  the  faihngs  and  errors  of  other  men,  but  using  the  most 
^^gorous  exertions  to  surmount  oui-  own.  —  Dr.  Robert  S.  M'All  : 
Discourses,  vol.  i.  p.  253. 

Li  some  good  men  the  imagination  is  so  inordinately  predominant, 
that  they  are  so  governed  by  tiiste  and  poetry  as  to  be  almost  insen- 
sible to  the  force  of  logic.  Others  are  so  impelled  by  imaginative 
emotions,  that  they  have  no  affinity  for  enlarged,  calm,  and  compre- 
hensive logiail  ^'iews.  In  others' the  association  of  ideas  has  imjxn'ted 
to  every  thing  tliat  has  been,  dm-ing  their  education,  linked  in  with  the 
system  of  the  gospel,  such  an  aspect  of  holiness,  that  even  errors  are 
invested  with  all  the  s;icredness  of  the  truths  with  which  tliey  have 
been  associated.  Not  only  the  church  of  Kome,  but  all  stiite  churches 
and  great  denominatioiml  organiKxtions,  exert  an  influence  ujjon  the 
standing  and  means  of  support  of  all  their  members,  so  powerful  that 
it  tends  to  arrest  or  overrule  the  free  action  of  the  logical  power,  by 
an  influence  which  is,  in  its  essential  nature,  rather  uitimidiiting  than 
illuminating  or  reasoning.  In  others,  emotions  of  reverence  and  grati- 
tude to  great  and  good  men  of  jiast  ages,  emotions  in  themselves  very 
proper,  are  so  inordinate  as  to  render  them  inc;\pablc  of  admitting  tliat 
any  of  their  \iews  c;m  be  erroneous.  National  jjrcjudices,  moreover, 
and  denominational  commitments,  and  the  general  state  of  society  in 
any  age,  exert  a  great  control  over  the  action  of  the  logical  power.  — 
1)K.  Edwaku  Bekcueii  :  Conjlkt  ofJlgcs,  p.  200. 


165 


CHAPTER    III. 

REASON    AND    REVELATION    THE    ONLY    LEGITIMATE 
STANDARDS   OF   RELIGIOUS   DOCTRINE. 


SECT.  I.  —  THE  OBLIGATION  TO   USE  THE  INTELLECTUAL   POWERS  IN 
1L\TTERS   OF   RELIGION. 

All-sacred  Reason !  source  and  soul  of  all, 
Demanding  praise  on  eartli,  or  earth  above! 

Edward  Young. 

This  pretence  of  a  necessity  of  humbling  the  understanding  is  none 
of  the  meanest  arts  whereby  some  persons  have  invaded  and  have 
usurped  a  power  over  men's  fiiith  and  consciences. . . .  He  that  submits 
his  understanding  to  all  that  he  knows  God  hath  said,  and  is  ready  to 
submit  to  aU  that  he  hath  said,  if  he  but  know  it,  dennng  his  own 
affections  and  ends  and  interests  and  human  persuasions,  laying  them 
all  down  at  the  foot  of  his  great  Master  Jesus  Chi-ist,  —  that  man  hath 
brought  his  understanding  into  subjection,  and  every  proud  thought 
into  the  obedience  of  Christ ;  and  this  is  "  the  obedience  of  faith " 
wliich  is  the  duty  of  a  Christian.  —  Jeremy  Taylor  :  Liberty  of 
Prophesying,  sect.  ii.  13 ;  in  Whole  Works,  vol.  ra.  p.  468. 

When  we  say  God  hath  revealed  any  thing,  we  must  be  ready  to 
prove  it,  or  else  we  say  nothing.  If  we  turn  off  reason  here,  we  level 
the  best  reHgion  in  the  world  with  the  wildest  and  most  atisurd  enthu- 
siasms. And  it  does  not  alter  the  case  much  to  give*reason  ill  names, 
to  call  it  "  blind  and  carnal  reason."  ,  .  .  For  our  parts,  Ave  ajijjrehend 
no  manner  of  inconvenience  in  hanng  reason  on  our  side ;  nor  need 
we  desire  a  better  evidence  that  any  man  is  in  the  wTong,  than  to  hear 
him  decLire  against  reason,  and  thereby  to  acknowledge  that  reason 
is  against  him.  .  .  .  Some  men  seem  to  think,  that  they  oblige  God 
mightily  by  belienng  pkm  contradictions ;  but  the  matter  is  quite 
otlierwise.  —  Archbishop  Tillotson  :  Sermon  56 ;  hi  Works,  vol.  iv. 
pp.  300-1. 


166  THE  INTELLECTUAL  I'OWBRS 

Is  Jt  not  intolerable  presumption  for  men  to  mould  ann  shape  religion 
according  to  their  fancies  and  humors,  and  to  stuff  it  Anth  an  infinite 
number  of  orthodox  propositions,  none  of  which  are  to  be  found  iu 
express  terms  in  Scripture,  but  are  only  pretended  to  be  deduced  from 
thence  by  such  imaginary  consequences,  from  some  little  liints  and 
appearances  of  things  ?  Especially,  is  not  this  unpardonable  in  those 
men  who  cry  down  reason  for  such  a  profane  and  carnal  thing  as  must 
not  presume  to  intermeddle  in  holy  matters,  and  yet  lay  down  thp 
foundation  of  their  religion,  and  ei-ect  such  glorious  and  magnificent 
febrics,  on  nothing  else  but  some  little  shows  and  appearances  of  reason  ? 
But  the  plain  truth  is  this,  when  men  argue  from  the  nature  of  God 
and  liis  works  and  providences,  from  the  nature  of  mankind,  and  those 
eternal  notions  of  good  and  enl,  and  the  essential  differences  of  things, 
—  that  is,  when  men  argue  from  j)lain  and  undeniable  principles,  w  liich 
have  an  immutable  and  unchangeable  ruvture,  and  so  can  bear  the  stress 
and  weight  of  a  just  consequence,  —  this  is  carnal  reason;  but  when 
they  argue  from  fancies  and  imaginations,  which  have  no  stiible  nature, 
from  some  pretty  allusions,  and  similitudes,  and  allegories,  wliich  liave 
no  certaui  shape  nor  form,  but  what  every  man's  flmcy  gives  them,  — 
this  is  sanctified  and  spiritual  reason  ;  but  why  I  camiot  imagine,  unless 
that  it  so  much  resembles  ghosts  and  sliadows,  which  have  nothing  solid 
and  substantial  in  them.  —  Dr.  William  Sherlock  :  Knowledge  of 
Christ,  chap.  iii.  sect.  3. 

There  are  those  who  do  not  scruple  to  say,  the  more  contradictions 
the  better;  the  gi-eater  the  struggle  and  oi)position  of  reason,  the 
greater  is  the  triumph  and  merit  of  our  faith.  But  there  is  no  likelihood 
of  suppressing  any  of  oiu:  doubts  or  disputes  in  religion  this  way ;  lor, 
besides  the  natural  propcnsion  of  the  soul  to  the  search  of  truth,  and 
the  strong  and  impatient  desire  we  have  to  know  as  much  as  ever  we 
can  of  what  immediately  concerns  us,  it  is  generally  and  very  justly 
looked  upon  both  as  the  privilege  and  duty  of  man  to  inquire  and 
examine  before  ^e  believes  or  judges,  imd  never  to  give  up  his  assent 
to  any  tiling  but  upon  good  and  rational  grounds.  ...  It  is  well  the 
dilUculties  of  subduing  tlie  understanding  are  too  great  to  be  mastered ; 
for  a  sUght  reflection  will  serve  to  convince  us,  that  the  necessiiry  con- 
sequences of  a  blind  resignation  of  judgment  would  be  far  more  fatal 
to  Christianity  than  all  our  present  divisions.  Wliat  blasphemies  and 
contr.idictions  may  and  have  been  imposed  upon  men's  belief,  under  the 
venerable  name  of  "  mysteries  "  ?  and  how  easy  are  Nilbnous  ijraclioes 
derived  from  an  absurd  faith  ? Another  condition  necessary  to 


TO   EE   USED   IN  MATTERS  01"   RELIGION.  167 

render  a  thing  capable  of  being  believed  is,  that  it  implies  no  contra- 
diction to  our  former  knowledge.  I  cannot  conceive  how  it  is  possible 
to  give  our  assent  to  any  tiling  tbit  contradicts  the  plain  dictixtes  of 
our  reason,  and  those  evident  principles  from  whence  we  derive  all  our 
knowledge.  ...  It  is  not  consistent  with  the  justice,  wdsdom,  or  good- 
ness of  God  to  require  us  to  believe  that  which,  according  to  the  frame 
and  make  he  has  given  us,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  believe ;  for, 
however  some  men  have  advanced  this  absurd  paradox  tliat  God  can 
make  contradictions  true,  I  am  very  certain,  that,  upon  an  impartial 
trial  of  their  faculties,  they  would  find  it  were  perfectly  out  of  their 
power  to  believe  exphcitly,  and  in  the  common  sense  of  the  terms,  that 
a  part  can  be  bigger  than  the  whole  it  is  a  part  of.  —  Dr.  Robert 
South:  Considerations  on  the  Trinity,  pp.  2,  3;  16,  17. 

It  is  the  true  remark  of  an  eminent  man,  who  had  made  many 
observations  on  human  natm-e,  "  If  reason  be  against  a  man,  a  man 
will  always  be  against  reason."  This  has  been  confirmed  by  the 
expeiience  of  all  ages.  Verj'  many  have  been  the  mstances  of  it  in 
the  Chi'istian  as  well  as  the  heathen  world ;  yea,  and  that  in  the  earliest 
times.  Even  then  there  were  not  wanting  well-meaning  men,  who,  not 
haAing  much  reason  themselves,  imagined  that  reason  was  of  no  use  in 
religion ;  yea,  rather,  that  it  was  a  hindrance  to  it.  And  there  has  not 
been  wanting  a  succession  of  men  who  have  believed  and  asserted 
the  same  thing.  But  never  was  there  a  greater  number  of  these  in  the 
Christian  church,  at  least  in  Britain,  tlian  at  this  day.  Among  them  that 
despise  and  nhfy  reason,  you  may  ahvays  expect  to  find  those  enthusiasts 
who  suppose  the  dreams  of  their  own  imagination  to  be  revelations  from 
God.  AVe  cannot  expect  thixt  men  of  tliis  turn  will  pay  much  regard  to 
reason.  Having  an  infallible  guide,  they  are  very  little  moved  by  the 
reasonings  of  fallible  men. . . .  K  you  oppose  reason  to  these,  when  they 
are  assertmg  propositions  ever  so  lull  of  absm-dity  and  blasphemy, 
they  will  probably  think  it  a  sufficient  answer  to  say,  "  Oh !  this  is  your 
reason,"  or  "  your  carnal  reason."  So  that  all  arguments  are  lost  upon 
them :  they  regard  them  no  more  than  stubble  or  rotten  wood.  — • 
John  AVesley:  Sermon  75;  in  f Forks,  vol.  ii.  p.  126. 

No  enlightened  Christian  would  i)e  disposed  to  deprecate  with 
wanton  contempt,  or  from  fiilse  humility,  the  powers  of  reason,  because 
he  must  consider  those  powers  as  the  gracious  gift  of  God  himself;  as 
the  distinguisiiing  characteristic  of  our  own  ruiture,  and  the  necessary 
instruments  both  of  our  intellectual  and  spiritual  imi)rovement.  — ■ 
Dk.  Samuel  Parr  :  Sermon  on  Faith ;  in  IVorlcs,  vol.  v.  p.  3o4. 


1G8  THE  IXTELLECTOAL   POWERS 

It  seems  to  me,  that,  of  all  faults,  this  [an  uns  ibmissive  under- 
standing]  is  the  most  difficult  to  define  or  to  discern ;  for  who  shall 
say  where  the  imderstanding  ought  to  submit  itself,  unless  where  it  is 
inclined  to  advocate  any  thing  immoral  ?  We  know  tliat  what  in  one 
age  has  been  allied  the  spirit  of  rebellious  reason,  has  in  another  been 
allowed  by  all  good  men  to  have  been  nothing  but  a  sound  judgment 
exempt  from  superstition.  —  Dr.  Tuomas  Arndld:  Letter  20;  in 
Life  and  Correspondence,  p.  69. 

There  is  not  necessarily  any  real  humility  in  a  disparagement  of  the 
human  understanding,  —  the  intellectual  powers,  as  contrasted  with 
the  affections  and  other  feelings.  "  The  pride  of  human  reason  "  is  a 
phrase  very  much  in  tlie  mouth  of  some  persons,  who  seem  to  think 
they  are  effectually  humbUng  themselves  by  feeling,  or  sometimes  by 
merely  professing,  an  excessive  distrust  of  all  exercise  of  the  intellect, 
while  they  resign  themselves  freely  to  the  guidance  of  what  they  Ciill 
the  heart ;  that  is,  their  prejudices,  passions,  inclinations,  and  fanciefe. 
But  the  feelings  are  as  much  a  part  of  man's  constitution  as  his  reason : 
every  part  of  our  nature  will  equally  lead  us  wrong  if  operating  imcon- 
trolled.  ...  It  may  be  observed,  by  the  wa}',  that  the  persons  who  use 
this  kind  of  langimge  never  do,  in  fact,  divest  themselves  of  any  human 
advantages  they  may  chance  to  possess.  Whatever  learning  or  argu- 
mentative powers  any  of  them  possess  (and  some  of  them  do  possess 
much),  I  nave  always  found  them  ready  to  put  forth,  in  any  controversy 
they  may  be  engaged  in,  \vithout  showing  much  tenderness  for  an  oppo- 
nent who  may  be  less  gifted.  It  is  only  when  learning  and  argument 
make  against  them,  that  the}'  declaim  against  the  jjride  of  intellect,  and 
depreciate  an  ajjpeal  to  reason  when  its  decision  is  unfavorable.  So 
that  the  sacrifice  which  they  ajjjiear  to  m;vke  is  one  which  in  reality 
they  do  not  make,  but  only  require,  when  it  suits  their  purjjose,  from 
others.  .  .  .  They  appear  voluntarily  divesting  themselves  of  what  many 
would  feel  a  pride  in ;  and  thus  often  conceal  from  others,  as  well  as 
from  themselves,  the  spiritual  pride  with  which  they  not  only  venerate 
their  own  feelings  and  jirejudices,  but  even  load  with  anathemas  all 
who  j)resume  to  dissent  from  them.  It  is  a  prostration,  not  of  man's 
self  before  God,  but  of  one  part  of  himself  before  anotiicr.  —  Arch- 
bishop ^VlL\TliLY :  Dangers  arising  from  Injudicious  Preaching ; 
in  Essays  on  Dangers  to  Christian  Faith,  pp.  59-62. 

All  who  insist  upon  a  blind  faith  only  show  the  feebleness  and 
timidity  of  their  faith.  Nay,  at  the  very  moment  when  they  are 
calling  upon  mankind  to  cast  down  their  understandings  before  what 


TO   BE  USED  IN  MATTERS  OF   RELIGION.  1G9 

thej  a^isert  to  be  an  incomprehensible  mystery,  there  is  no  little  self- 
exaltation  in  assuming  that  their  own  understiindings  are  the  measure 
of  human  cajmcit)-,  and  that  what  to  them  is  obscure  and  perplexing 
must  needs  be  so  for  ever  to  all  mankind.  —  Julius  Charles  Hare  : 
The  Victory  of  Faith,  pp.  63-4. 

We  dissent,  on  the  other  hand,  very  widely  from  those  who  are  in 
the  habit  of  decrying  reason,  and  of  uttering  strong  reproaches  against 
her,  as  though  she  were  the  great  corrupter  of  the  human  race,  and  the 
determined  opposer  and  enemy  of  revelation.  Things  like  these  we 
liave  beard  and  read,  to  our  deep  regret  and  utter  astonishment ;  and 
we  would  fain  put  all  the  friends  of  evangelical  sentiment  on  their 
guard  against  uttering  or  countenancing  them.  Nothing  can  be  farther 
from  the  truth  than  that  revelation  requires  us  to  abandon  reason. 
Nay,  so  far  is  the  case  from  this,  that  revelation  addi-esses  itself,  first 
of  all,  to  the  faculty  of  reason.  It  is  admitted,  on  all  hands,  that  the 
Bible  does  not  prove  the  being  of  a  God :  it  assumes  this  truth,  as 
already  kno\vn  and  conceded. . . .  What  is  it  that  weighs  and  compares 
the  various  testimonies  and  evidences  that  a  God  exists,  and  that  he 
has  revealed  himself  in  the  Scriptures ;  and  then  deduces  conclusions 
from  tliis  ?  Reason.  What  is  it  which  ascertains  the  laws  of  inter- 
pretation for  that  book  which  professes  to  be  a  revelation  from  God  ? 
Reason.  What  determines  that  God  has  not  members  of  a  physical 
body  like  our  own,  when  the  Bible  seems  to  ascribe  them  to  him  ? 
Reason.  .  .  .  Reason,  then,  is  oiu*  highest  and  ultimate  source  of  appeal 
in  the  judgment  that  we  form  of  things  which  are  fundament;il  in 
regard  to  religion.  Even  if  a  revelation  were  to  be  made  to  us 
in  j)articular,  we  must  appeal  to  reason  to  judge  whether  the  evidences 
if  its  reahty  were  sufficient.  Such  being  most  plainly  the  fact,  we  can 
nevei  join  with  those  who  think  they  are  doing  God  service  when  they 
deer}-  the  faculty  of  reason ;  a  faculty  which  we  regard  as  one  of  the 
highest  and  noblest  proofs  that  our  nature  was  formed  in  the  image  of 
God.  Shall  we  say,  now,  that  reason  can  never  be  trusted ;  tliat  she 
is  always  so  dark,  so  erring,  that  we  can  have  no  confidence  in  her 
dfc^'isions  ?  If  so,  then  why  should  we  trust  her  decisions  in  fiivor  of  the 
beir;g  of  a  God,  or  of  his  spiritual  nature,  or  of  his  moral  attriliutes,  or 
of  the  trutli  of  revelation  ?  If  reason  does  not  decide  in  favor  of  all 
these  and  many,  moi'e  truths,  then  what  is  the  faculty  of  our  nature 
which  does  decide  ?  aftd  is  that  other  faculty  any  more  secure  against 
error  than  the  faculty  of  reason  ?  —  Spirit  bJ  the  Pilgrims  for  April, 
1828;  vol.  i.  pp.  2()4-.'i  -^^^ 

15 


170  THE  INTELLBCTDAL  POAVERS 

There  are  limits  to  tlie  duty  of  faith  ia  alleged  mysteries.  If  there 
were  not,  there  could  be  no  defence  agixinst  absurdities  the  most 
gross,  promulgiited  under  the  cover  of  the  Bible.  The  advocates  of 
transubstantuition  take  refuge  behind  the  shield  of  mystery ;  but  all 
Protest^uits  agree  m  the  decision,  that  a  dogma  which  does  \-iolence 
to  the  intuitive  convictions  of  the  hiunan  mind,  tlu'ough  the  senses, 
shall  not  be  sheltered  by  the  plea  of  mystery  and  faith.  So  there  are 
certain  first  truths  on  which  all  reasoning  rests.  AVithout  them,  we 
cannot  evince  the  being  of  a  God,  or  establish  the  di\Tne  origm  or 
authority  of  the  Bible.  The  intuitive  con\ictions  of  the  human  mind 
as  to  honor  and  right  are  of  no  less  authority.  "Without  them,  we 
could  form  no  idea  of  the  moral  character  of  God.  If  any  st;xtenients 
are  directly  at  war  wth  these,  the  resort  to  mystery  and  tliith,  in  their 
defence,  is  not  legitimate.  —  Dr.  Euw.vrd  Beeciier:  Coiiftid  of 
Ages,  p.  129. 

He  [Christ]  always  respected  reason  in  man,  and  addressed  himself 
frankly  and  magnanimously  to  man's  free  wU,  teaching  everj"\vhere 
that  when  we  neglect  those  faculties  given  us  by  nature  for  perceiving 
the  ti-uth,  we  judge  falsely  of  true  religion,  and  involve  ourselves  in 
disgi-aceful  inconsistencies.  For  examples,  consult  Matt,  xii.  9-12. 
Luke  xiv.  1-6.  Matt,  xxiii.  16-33,  &c.  In  reading  the  whole  history 
of  Christ's  lile  and  instructions,  we  ainnot  fail  to  be  struck  with  asto- 
nishment and  dehght  at  the  ciirefuhiess  mth  which  he  ever  honored 
the  freedom  and  avpacities  of  the  human  mind ;  in  all  c;xses  seeking  to 
create  ratioiml  convictions,  and  never  employing  coercion  aside  from 
the  constraints  of  love.  —  E.  L,  MagoOn  :  Repiib.  Christlaniti/,  p.  144. 

Let  us  ever  beware  of  the  sin  and  folly  of  disp;iraging  the  reason. 
It  is  the  only  high  and  godlike  endowment  jjossessed  by  us,  —  the 
only  attribute  in  which  man  still  bears  the  image  of  his  Maker.  Seek 
not  to  degrade  and  humble  it;  but  bow  in  Avilhng  submission  to  its 
rightful  authority.  It  is  the  voice  of  God  speaking  within  )ou.  Every 
one  of  its  utterances  airries  witii  it  the  divine  siuiction.  Whatever  w« 
learn  from  other  sources  is  at  best  but  knowledge  at  second  luincL 
It  has  authority,  and  demands  our  reception  and  coutidence  only  as  it 
comes  with  credentials  recognized  by  the  intelligence.  Veil  tiiis  light 
within,  and  you  have  nothing  without  but  mist  and  obscurity.  Extin- 
guish it,  and  you  are  at  once  and  for  ever  enveloped  in  prolbuiid 
darkness.  Disparage  the  reason,  deny  its  paramount  authority,  and 
you  cut  oif  the  only  arm  by  whicii  you  hold  on  to  tlie  ])lan]i  of  truth 
Uoiiling  upon  a  I)oundless  ocean  of  possibilities.     From  tlie  free  air 


TO   BK   USED   IN   MATTERS   OF   RELIGION.  171 

and  sunlight  of  day,  you  go  cIoami,  dowii  into  the  gloomy  depths  of  a 
fiithomless,  bottomless  scepticism.  ...  If  your  faith  be  in  conflict  with 
^he  clearly  ascertained  laws  of  natm-e,  or  the  well-established  principles 
of  science,  —  which  are  only  the  inductions  of  a  larger  ex])erience,  — 
you  Avill  do  well  to  modify  it.  If  you  contmue  the  unequal  contest,  you 
are  sure  in  the  end  to  be  beaten.  The  ever-active  spirit  of  investigation, 
and  the  continually  growing  developments  of  knowledge  resulting  from 
it,  cannot  be  restrained  by  the  fetters  of  a  creed.  As  well  might  you 
hope  to  bind  leviathan  with  threads  of  gossamer,  or  stojJ  the  fiery 
steed  to  which  the  car  has  been  haniessed  by  modern  invention,  by 
placing  yoiu:  hand  upon  it,  or  by  simply  looking  at  it.  Interpretation 
has  always,  in  the  end,  yielded  to  the  demands  of  advancing  science, 
however  long  it  has  struggled  against  them ;  and  it  always  must  yield. 
Nor  are  the  interests  of  piety  and  religion  in  diinger  of  permanently 
suffering  from  it  The  truth,  although  for  a  time  depressed,  it  may 
be,  at  length,  detached  from  the  leaden  weight  of  error  that  bore  it 
dowii,  is  seen  floating  still  more  buoyantly  upon  the  sin-face.  Resist 
not  progress  in  any  of  the  paths  of  human  inquiry.  There  is  surely 
everj-where  need  enough  of  more  knowledge.  If  the  light  pain  you, 
it  is  because  your  eyes  are  weak  or  diseased.  Give  the  necessary 
attention  to  them ;  but  do  not  attempt  to  put  out  the  sun.  In  yoiur 
zeal  for  the  interests  of  Christian  trutli,  do  not  exalt  the  Scriptm^es  at 
the  expense  of  the  reason.  Ilcmemljer  that  the  latter  is  the- elder 
daughter  of  Heaven.  At  least,  pay  her  equal  honors.  —  Dr.  Geo.  L 
Chace  :  Relation  of  Divine  Providence  to  Physical  Laws,  pp.  41-4. 

When  preparing  the  way  for  others  to  receive  mysterious  and  unintelli- 
^ble  dogmas,  it  is  not  unusual  for  some  religionists  to  depreciate  that  reason 
wliich  God  has  graciously  bestowed  on  man,  by  a  process  of  argumentation, 
such  as  it  is,  which  implies  that  they  do  not  consider  it  altogethe**  unworthy 
of  respect;  and  to  represent  Unitarians  as  deifying  their  intellectual  powers, 
because  they  aim  at  testing  the  truth  of  theological  opinions  bf  an  appeal 
to  the  i)rinciples  of  reason;  thus  betraying  their  own  fears,  that,  >f  tried  at 
the  bar  of  that  divine  judge,  the  doctrines  which  they  propound  would  be 
found  wanting  in  evidence  sufficient  to  establish  their  tnUh.  The  senti- 
ments, however,  quoted  in  this  and  the  next  section,  are  of  a  far  different 
and  more  hondrable  character,  and  are  perfectly  accordant  with  the  princi- 
ples held  by  all  Unitarians.  But  if,  as  we  believe,  they  are  fouuded  iu 
truth,  and  if  the  doctrines  of  reputed  Orthodoxy  are  opposed  to  the  dictates 
of  reason,  as  we  will  hereafter  show  from  the  confessions  of  eminent  Trini- 
tarians,—  then,  because  reason  and  revelation,  proceeding  equally  from  the 
Father  of  lights,  cannot  be  repugnant,  should  these  doctrines  be  rejected  «» 
unworthy  the  credence  of  rational  men  or  of  enlightened  Christians. 


172  ILUfilO^iY   OF   REASON   AND  RKVELATION. 


SECT.  II.  —  RFASON  AND  KEVKLATION  CONSISTENT  WITH  EACH  OTHER. 

An  opinion  hiith  spread  itself  very  far  in  tlie  worlJ,  as  if  the  way  to  be  ripe  in 
faith  were  to  be  raw  in  wit  and  judgment;  as  if  reason  were  an  enemy  unto  religion, 
childish  simplicity  the  motlier  of  ghostly  and  divine  wisdom.  —  Uicuard  IIuokeii. 

God  never  offers  any  thing  to  any  man's  belief,  tliat  plainly  contra- 
dicts the  natural  and  essential  notions  of  his  mind ;  because  this  would 
be  for  God  to  destroy  hia  own  workmanshij),  and  to  impose  that  ujion 
the  understuiding  of  man,  wtiifh,  whilst  it  remains  what  it  is,  it  camiot 
possibly  admit.  For  instance,  wt  cannot  imagine  that  God  should 
reveal  to  any  man  any  thing  tbxt  plainly  contradicts  the  essential  per- 
fections of  the  divine  nature;  for  such  a  revelation  can  no  more  be 
su])])osed  to  be  from  (jod,  than  a  revelation  from  God,  that  there  is  no 
God  ;  which  is  a  downright  contradiction.  —  AiiCHiusHOP  TiLLOTSON : 
Sennon  06 ;  in  fVorks,  vol.  iv.  ]).  296. 

Though  some  deluded  men  may  tell  you,  that  faith  and  reason  are 
such  enemies  that  they  exclude  each  other  as  to  the  same  object,  and 
that  the  less  reason  you  have  to  ])rove  the  truth  of  the  things  believed, 
the  stronger  and  more  Liudable  is  your  faith ;  yet,  when  it  cometh  to  the 
trial,  you  will  find  that  faith  is  no  unreasonable  thing,  and  that  God 
requireth  you  to  believe  no  more  than  you  have  sufficient  reason  for  to 
warrant  you  and  bear  you  out,  and  that  your  faith  can  be  no  more  than 
is  your  j)erception  of  the  reasons  why  you  should  believe ;  and  tliat 
God  doth  suppose  reason  when  he  infuseth  fiiith,  and  useth  reason  in 
the  use  of  faith.  They  that  believe,  and  know  not  why,  or  know  no 
sufKcient  reason  to  warrant  their  belief,  do  ttdvc  a  fancy,  an  ojiinion,  or 
a  dream,  for  faith.  —  RicllARU  Baxter  :  Christum  Directory  ;  in 
Pradiad  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  171. 

Right  reason,  no  less  than  Scrij)ture,  proceeds  from  God,  and  is  as  a 
light  set  up  for  our  use,  by  which  we  are  enabled  to  discern  trutli  from 
error.  It  is  incredible  that  di\  ine  revelation  should  ever  be  rejjugnant 
to  reason,  or  that  any  thing  should  be  philosoi)hically  true  wliich  is 
theologically  false ;  for,  since  reason,  as  well  as  revelation,  is  the  gitl 
of  Heaven,  God  would  be  opposed  to  himself  if  these  were  inimical. 
Light  is  not  contrary  to  light,  but  the  one  is  greater  than  the  other. 
Revelation  does  not  destroy,  but  jjerfect,  reason :  what  the  Litter  is 
of  itself  unal)le  to  discover,  the  former  being  sujjeradiled  clearly  per- 
ceives. —  LlMliORCU :  Tfieologia  Christiana,  lib.  L  caj).  12,  §  4. 


HARMONY   OF    REASON    AND   REYELATIOX.  173 

It  is  blasphemy  to  think,  that  God  can  contradict  himself;  and 
therefoi'e  right  reason  being  the  voice  of  God,  as  well  as  rcAelation, 
tliey  can  never  be  directly  contradictory  to  one  another.  —  Dr.  Robert 
South:  Considerations  on  the  Trinity,  p.  18, 

There  are  many,  it  is  confessed,  particularly  those  "who  are  styled 
mystic  divines,  that  utterly  decry  the  use  of  reason  in  religion ;  nay, 
tliat  condemn  all  reasoning  concerning  the  things  of  God,  as  utterly 
destructive  of  true  religion.  But  we  can  in  no  wise  agree  with  this, 
AVe  find  no  authority  for  it  in  Holy  Writ  So  far  from  it,  that  we 
find  there  both  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  continually  reasoning  with 
their  opposers.  —  John  Wesley  :  Works,  vol,  v,  p.  12. 

It  will  not  be  easy  for  missionaries  of  any  nation  to  make  much 
impression  on  the  Pagans  of  any  country ;  because  missionaries  in 
general,  instead  of  teaching  a  simple  system  of  Christianity,  have 
perjjlexed  their  hearers  with  unintelligible  doctrines  not  expressly  deli- 
vered in  Scripture,  but  fabricated  from  the  conceits  and  passions  and 
prejudices  of  men.  Chi-istianity  is  a  rational  religion :  the  Romans, 
the  Athenians,  the  Corinthians,  and  others,  were  highly  ci^alized,  far 
advanced  in  the  rational  use  of  their  intellectual  faculties ;  and  they 
all,  at  length,  exchanged  Paganism  for  Christianity.  The  same  change 
will  tiike  i)lace  in  other  countries,  as  they  become  enlightened  by  the 
progress  of  European  Hterature,  &c.  —  Bishop  Watson  :  Anecdotes 
of  his  Life,  p.  198. 

The  lighll  of  revelation,  it  should  be  remembered,  is  not  opposite  to 
the  light  of  reason ;  the  former  presupposes  the  latter ;  they  are  both 
emanations  from  the  same  som'ce ;  and  the  discoveries  of  the  Bible, 
however  supernatural,  are  adch-essed  to  the  understanding,  the  only 
medium  of  information  whether  human  or  dixine.  Revealed  religion 
is  not  a  cloud  Avhich  overshadows  reason :  it  is  a  superior  illumination 
designed  to  perfect  its  exercise,  and  supply  its  deficiencies.  Since 
truth  is  always  consistent  with  itself,  it  can  never  sufiier  from  the  most 
enlarged  exertion  of  the  intellectual  powers,  prorided  those  powers  be 
regulated  by  a  spuit  of  dutiful  submission  to  the  oracles  of  God,  — 
Robert  Hall  :  Address  in  behalf  of  the  Baptist  Academical  Insti- 
tution at  Stepney;  in  Works,  vol,  ii.  p,  441. 

The  doctiine  which  cannot  stand  the  test  of  rational  investigation 
cannot  be  time.  .  .  .  We  have  gone  too  far  when  we  have  said,  "  Such 
and  such  doctrines  should  not  be  subjected  to  rational  investigation, 
being  doctrines  of  pure  revelation."  I  know  no  such  doctrines  in  the 
Bible.     The  doctrines  of  tliis  book  are  doctrines  of  eternal  reason, 

15* 


174  HARMONY   OF   REASON'   AND   KEVKI.ATION. 

and  they  are  revealed  because  they  are  such.  Human  reason  could 
not  have  found  them  out ;  but,  when  revealed,  reason  can  both  appre- 
hend and  compreliend  them.  It  sees  their  perfect  liarmony  among 
themselves,  their  agreement  with  the  perfections  of  the  di\-ine  nature, 
and  their  sovereign  suifcxbleness  to  the  nature  and  stiite  of  man :  thus 
reason  api)roves  and  applauds.  Some  men,  it  is  true,  cannot  reason ; 
and  therefore  they  declaim  against  reason,  and  proscribe  it  in  the 
examination  of  religious  truth.  —  Dr.  Ad.vm  Cl.uiice  :  Ccminentary, 
vol.  vi.  last  page. 

It  is  not  scriptural,  but  fanatical,  to  oppose  faith  to  reason.  Faith 
is  properly  opposed  to  sense,  and  is  the  listening  to  the  dictates  of  the 
higher  part  of  oiu-  mind,  to  which  alone  God  sjjeaks,  rather  than  to 
the  lower  part  of  us,  to  which  the  world  speaks.  There  is  no  end  to  the 
mischiefs  done  by  that  one  very  common  and  perfectly  unscriptiiral 
mistake  of  ojjposing  faith  and  reason,  or  whatever  you  choose  to  call 
the  highest  part  of  man's  nature.  And  this  you  will  find  that  the 
Scripture  never  does ;  and  obser\-ing  this,  cuts  down  at  once  all  Pusey's 
nonsense  about  rationaHsm ;  which,  in  order  to  be  contrasted  scriptu- 
rally  with  faith,  must  mean  the  following  some  lower  part  of  our 
nature,  whether  sensual  or  merely  intellectual  ;  that  is,  some  part 
which  does  not  acknowledge  God.  But  what  he  abuses  as  rationalism 
is  just  what  the  Scripture  commends  as  knowledge,  judgment,  under^ 
standing,  and  the  like ;  that  is,  not  the  following  a  merely  intellectual 
part  of  our  nature,  but  the  sovereign  part;  that  is,  thepnoral  reason 
acting  under  God,  and  using,  so  to  speak,  the  telescope  of  faith  for 
objects  too  distant  for  its  naked  eye  to  discover.  And  to  tliis  is  opjjosed, 
in  scrij)tural  language,  folly  and  idolatry  and  blindness,  and  otiier  such 
terms  of  reproof.  According  to  Pusey,  the  forty-fourth  chajjter  of 
Isaiah  is  rationalism,  and  the  man  who  bowed  do\ni  to  the  stock  of  a 
tree  was  a  humble  man,  who  did  not  inquire,  but  believe.  But  if 
Isaiah  be  right,  and  speaks  the  words  of  God,  then  Puse}-,  and  the  man 
who  bowed  down  to  the  stock  of  a  tree,  should  learn  that  God  is  not 

served  by  folly Faith  without  reason  is  not  jn-oporly  faith,  but 

mere  ])ower-worship ;  and  jjower-worslii])  may  bo  devil-worshij) ;  for  it 
is  reason  which  entertains  the  idea  of  God,  —  an  idea  essentially  made 
up  of  trutli  and  goodness,  no  less  tlian  of  power.  ...  It  this  were  con- 
sidered, men  would  be  more  careful  of  spe;iking  disjjaragingly  of  reason, 
seeing  that  is  the  necess;iry  condition  of  the  existence  of  faith.  It  is 
quite  true,  that,  when  we  liave  attained  to  faith,  it  sujiersedcs  reason ; 
W(;  walk  by  suiiliglit,  ratlier  than  by  moonlight;  following  tlie  guiduice 


HARMONY   OF   REASON   AND   REVELATION.  175 

of  infinite  reason,  instead  of  finite.    But  how  are  we  to  attain  to  fiith  ? 

—  in  other  words,  how  Ciin  we  distinguish  God's  voice  from  the  voice 
of  e^^l  ?  for  we  must  distinguish  it  to  be  God's  voice,  })efore  we  can 
have  faith  in  it.  We  distinguish  it,  and  can  distinguish  it  no  other- 
wise, by  comjjaring  it  with  that  idea  of  God  which  reason  intuitively 
enjoys ;  the  gift  of  reason  being  God's  original  revelation  of  himself  to 
man.  Now,  if  the  voice  wliich  comes  to  us  from  the  unseen  world 
agree  not  with  this  idea,  we  have  no  choice  but  to  pronounce  it  not  to 
be  God's  voice ;  for  no  signs  of  power,  in  confu'mation  of  it,  can  alone 
prove  it  to  be  God's.  God  is  not  power  only,  but  power  and  truth  and 
holiness ;  and  the  existence  of  even  infinite  power  does  not  necessarily 

involve  in  it  truth  and  holiness  also It  is  no  less  true,  that, 

while  there  is,  on  the  one  side,  a  faculty  higher  than  the  understanding, 
which  is  entitled  to  pronounce  upon  its  defects, ...  so  there  is  a  clamor 
often  niised  against  it,  not  from  above,  but  from  below,  —  the  clamor  of 
mere  shallowness  and  ignorance  and  passion.  Of  this  sort  is  some  of  the 
outcry  which  is  raised  agamst  rationaHsm.  Men  do  not  leap,  per  saltum 
mortalem,  from  ordinary  folly  to  di^in'?  wisdom ;  and  the  fooHsh  have 
no  right  to  thinli  they  are  angels,  because  they  are  not  humanly  wise. 
There  is  a  deep  and  universal  truth  in  St.  Paul's  words,  where  he  says, 
that  Christians  Avish  "  not  to  be  unclothed,  but  clothed  upon,  that 
mortjility  may  be  swallowed  up  of  life."  Wisdom  is  g-ained,  not  by 
renouncing  or  despising  the  understanding,  but  by  adding  to  its  ])er- 
fect  work  tlie  perfect  work  of  reason ;  and  of  reason's  jjerfection,  faith. 

—  Dr.  Thomas  Arnold  :  Letter  143,  in  Life  and  Correspondence, 
p.  286 ;  and  Miscellaneous  Works,  pp.  266-7,  270. 

God  is  the  original  of  natural  truth,  as  well  as  of  that  which  comes 
by  particular  revelation.  No  projjosition,  therefore,  which  is  repugnant 
to  the  fundamental  principles  of  reason  can  be  the  sense  of  any  part 
of  the  word  of  God.  —  Thomas  Hartwell  Horne  :  Introduction  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  vol.  i.  p.  356. 

Too  many  have  not  scrupled  to  affirm,  that  the  truths  of  reason  are 
at  variance  with  those  of  revelation ;  that  the  volume  of  nature  and  the 
volume  of  histoi-y  contradict  the  volume  of  God's  word;  and  that 
the  only  way  of  cleaving  to  the  last  is  to  close  and  fling  away  the  other 
two.  Yet  this  is  impossit)le.  !Man  cannot  disbelieve  that  which  the 
legitimate  exercise  of  all  his  faculties  compels  him  to  acknowledge. 
He  is  so  framed  that  reason  is  the  lord  of  his  mind,  and  intellectually 
he  must  obey  it  —  Julius  Charles  Hare  :  Mission  of  the  Comforter, 
voL  i.  p.  204 


176  nAR-MONT  OF   RE.\SOX   AXD  REVKLATIOX. 

We  allow  that  the  reason  and  conscience  of  man  are  to  judge  of 
that  [the  Christian]  revehtion,  so  fer  as  its  truths  come  within  the 
domain  of  conscious  knowledge.  In  sajing  this,  we  sj)eak  with 
the  utmost  distinctness.  We  are  not  exalting  reason  above  revehtion ; 
we  are  not  speiking  of  a  self-sufficient  reason,  but  of  a  reason  joined 
with  devout  affectioa«,  and  enlightened  by  the  Spirit  of  Truth-  It  is 
too  often  the  folly  of  Christian  divines,  in  decrying  a  false  re;ison,  to 
speak  dispanxgingly  of  all  rational  power,  and  thus  make  revelation 
unreasonable.  But  it  Ls,  first  of  all,  untrue,  and  cuts  away  the  foimda- 
tion  of  Christianitj'.  It  puts  out  the  eye  by  which  we  see  the  light. 
If  the  nund  could  have  no  idea  of  God,  it  could  not  receive  the  tru£h 
of  God  in  his  Son  Jesas  Christ ;  if  the  conscience  have  no  perception  of 
moral  sight,  it  could  not  recognize  the  perfect  holiness  of  our  Lord,  or 
the  obligation  of  duty  to  him ;  if  the  soul  have  no  thought  or  longing 
after  immortality,  his  resurrection  and  gift  of  eternal  life  are  robbed 
of  their  power.  —  Church  Review  for  Jan.  1855  ;  voL  \n.  pp.  504-5. 

The  quotations  in  this  section  have  been  made,  not  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  the  dictates  of  reason,  and  the  teachings  of  each  and  of  all 
portions  of  Scripture,  are  entirely  coincident  one  with  another,  but  merely 
that  whatever  has  been  revealed  by  God  through  the  utterances  or  the 
writings  of  inspired  men  never  has  contnidicte<i,  and  never  can  contra- 
dict, the  judgments  which  are  fonned  by  a  proper  u^e  of  tlie  intellectual 
powers.  The  revelations  which  are  recorded  in  the  Bible  as  having  been 
made  to  the  Hebrews  by  Moses  and  the  prophets,  and  to  mankind  by  Jesus 
and  his  apostk-s,  unquestionably  afford  us  higher  and  clearer  views  of  the 
will  and  character  of  Almighty  God,  and  of  our  relation  to  him  and  the  great 
family  of  rational  beings,  than  were  ever  reached  by  men  of  the  loftiest 
order  of  intellect,  when  unaided  by  supernatural  light  from  Heaven.  But, 
when  these  revelations  are  brought  home  to  the  human  mind,  they  must 
either  be  felt  to  harmonize  with  the  laws  of  our  common  reason,  or  most 
go  to  prove  that  the  faculty  of  our  nature  which  discerns  the  alleged  revela- 
tions to  have  come  frbm  God  is  unworthy  of  our  confidence ;  thus  destroying, 
as  it  were,  the  very  foundation  of  our  faith  in  a  supernatural  message.  If, 
therefore,  any  professedly  divine  communication,  though  sounding  in  our 
ears  from  the  vault  of  the  eternal  heavens,  or  bonie  to  us  by  the  holiest  and 
highest  of  divine  messengers,  were  found  to  proclaim  doctrines  derogatory 
to  G'xl,  or  inimical  to  the  principles  which  lie  embedded  in  the  constitution 
of  our  moral  and  mental  nature,  we  could  have  no  assurance  that  they  came 
from  the  Author  of  wisdom  and  of  every  grMxl  and  perfect  gift.  In  such 
circumstances,  indeed,  we  might  make  a  feint  of  surrendering  our  under- 
standings ;  but,  in  the  very  act  of  retractation,  and  in  opposition  to  all  th» 
forces  of  our  will,  we  should  feel  compelled  to  say,  with  the  poet,  that  — 
"  When  Faith  U  virtue,  Reaaon  makes  it  ao." 


SUFFICIENCY  OF   THE  SCIUPTURES.  177 


SECT.  III.  ^-  HOLY  WRIT  SUI'FICIEXT,  WITHOUT  THE  DICTA  OF 
CHURCHES  OR  OF  INDIVIDUALS,  TO  BE  A  RULE  OF  FAITH  AND 
COMMUNION. 

[Our]  champions  are  the  Prophets  and  Apostles ; 
[Our]  weapons,  holy  saws  of  Sacred  Writ. 

Shakbpears 

§  1.  sufficieucy  of  the  sacked  sckiptures. 

Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salvation ;  so  that 
whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to 
be  required  of  any  man,  that  it  should  be  beUeved  as  an  article  of  the 
faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  salvation.  —  Articles 
of  the  Church  of  England,  Art.  6. 

All  synods  or  comicils,  since  the  apostles'  times,  whether  general  or 
particular,  may  err,  and  many  have  erred :  therefore  they  are  not  to  be 
made  the  rule  of  faith  or  practice,  but  to  be  used  as  an  help  in  both. 

The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  are  the 

word  of  God,  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  obedience.  —  Westminster 
Divines  :  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  xxxi.  4 ;  and  Larger  Catechism, 
Quest.  3. 

All  Protestants  agree  that  the  Scripture  is  sufficient  to  salvation, 
and  contains  in  it  all  things  necessary  to  it.  —  Archbishop  Laud  : 
Conf.  ivith  Fisher,  p.  34 ;  as  quoted  in  Short  and  Safe  Expedient. 

If  ministers,  or  councils  called  general,  do  err  and  contradict  the 
word  of  God,  we  must  do  our  best  to  discern  it ;  and,  discerning  it, 
must  desert  their  error  rather  than  the  truth  of  God.  —  RiciLiRD 
Baxter  :  Christian  Directory,  part  i.  chap.  iv.  10 ;  in  Practical 
Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  554. 

No  true  Protestant  considers  him  [Luther],  or  any  of  the  Reformers, 
as  either  apostle  or  evangeUst.  It  is  a  fundamental  principle  with  such 
to  call  no  man  upon  the  earth  master;  knowing  that  we  have  one 
Master,  one  only  infalhble  Teacher,  in  heaven,  who  is  Christ.  All 
human  teachers  are  no  further  to  be  regarded,  than  they  appear,  to 
the  best  of  our  judgment,  on  impartial  examination,  to  be  his  inter- 
preters, and  to  speak,  his  words.  The  right  of  private  judgment,  in 
opposition  to  all  human  claims  to  a  dictatorial  authority  in  matters  of 
fiiith,  is  a  point  so  essential  to  Protestiintism,  that,  were  it  to  be  given 
up,  there  would  be  no  possibility  of  eluding  the  worst  reproaches  with 


178  SUFFICIENCY   OK  THE  SCRIPTDRE3. 

wliich  the  Konianist  charges  the  Ileformation ;  namely,  schism,  sedi- 
tion, heresy,  rebellion,  and  I  know  not  what  But  if  our  Lord,  the 
great  Author  and  Finisher  of  the  faith,  had  ever  meant  that  we  should 
receive  implicitly  its  articles  from  any  human  authority,  he  would 
never  have  so  expresslj-  prohibited  our  railing  any  man  u])on  the 
earth  master,  leader,  or  guide.  —  Dr.  Geo.  Campbell  :  Lectures  on 
Ecclesiastical  Histonj,  Lect.  28. 

We  must  not,  if  we  would  profit  by  the  examples  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  refer  the  people  as  a  decisive  authority,  on  the  essential  and 
immutable  points  of  Cliristian  foith  and  duty,  to  the  declarations  or 
decrees  of  any  class  or  body  of  fallible  men,  —  of  any  who  have  not 
sensibl}-  mmiculous  proofs  of  inspiration  to  appeal  to.  Whether  it  be 
to  a  comicil  or  to  a  church  that  reference  is  made,  —  whether  to  ancient 
or  to  later  Christii.\n  writers,  —  whether  to  a  gi-eat  or  to  a  small  number 
of  men,  however  learned,  wise,  and  good,  —  in  all  cases  the  broad  line  of 
distinction  between  inspired  and  uninspired  must  never  be  lost  sight 

of. "  When  they  shall  say  mito  you,  Lo,  here !  or  Lo,  there ! 

believe  it  not."  "  If  they  shall  say.  Behold  !  he  is  ui  the  secret 
chambers  "  (of  some  conclave  or  council  of  divines),  "  or,  Behold !  he 
is  in  the  wilderness  "  (inspiring  some  enthusiastic  and  disorderly  pre- 
tender to  a  new  light),  "  go  not  after  them."  Whether  they  fix  on 
this  or  that  particular  church  as  the  abode  of  such  inspu-ed  authonty ; 
or  on  the  universal  church,  —  which,  again,  is  to  be  marked  out  either 
as  consisting  of  the  numeriad  majority,  or  the  majority  of  those  who 
lived  within  a  cerbiin  (arbitrarily  fixed)  period,  or  a  majority  of  the 
sound  and  orthodox  believers,  i.  e.  of  those  in  agreement  with  the  i)cr- 
sons  who  so  designate  them,  —  all  these,  in  their  varying  oijinioiis  as 
to  the  seat  of  the  supposed  insjiired  authority,  are  alike  in  this,  —  that 
they  are  following  no  track  marked  out  by  Christ  or  his  apostles,  but 
merelj'  their  own  unauthorized  conjectures.  While  one  sets  up  a 
golden  image  in  Bethel,  and  another  in  Dan,  s;iying,  "  These  be  thy 
gods,  O  Israel !  "  all  are,  in  fact,  "  going  astray  after  their  own  inven- 
tions," and  "  worshi])j)ing  the  work  of  their  o\ni  hands."  For,  however 
vehemently  any  one  may  decry  "  the  jiride  of  intellect,"  and  the  jjre- 
sumjjtion  of  exercising  private  judgment,  it  is  plain  that  that  man  is 
setting  up,  as  the  absolute  and  ultimate  st;uidard  of  divine  truth,  the 
o])iiii()ns  held  by  himself  or  his  ]wrty,  if  these  are  to  be  the  decisive 
test  of  what  is  orthodoxy,  and  orthodoxy  again  the  test  of  the  genuine 
clun-ch,  and  the  clun-ch  the  authorititive  oracle  of  gospel  truth.  Ami 
yet  this  sliglitly  circuitous  mode  of  setting  up  the  decrees  of  fallible 


SUFFICIENCY  OF  THE   SCRIPTDKES.  179 

man  as  the  object  of  religious  veneration  and  faith  will  often  be  found 
to  succeed  in  deluding  the  unwary.  — Archbishop  Whately  :  Essays 
on  Dangers  to  Christian  Faith,  pp.  130-2,  138-40. 

We  know  of  no  standard  but  the  Bible,  —  nothing  that  can  serve 
to  show  the  truth  of  a  religious  tenet,  except  the  infallible  word  of  God. 
Councils  may  change ;  Fathers  of  the  church  may  be  mistaken ;  the 
Keformers  were  falhble ;  and  shall  we  who  enjoy  the  benefit  resulting 
from  the  Hght  and  learning  of  past  ages  stand  still  where  they  stopped, 
or  appeal  to  them  as  our  guides,  just  because  they  attained  to  eminence 
at  a  time  when  surrounding  circumstances  were  unfavorable  to  the 
progress  of  truth  ?  We  were  not  made  to  sleep  over  the  Bible,  or  to 
stereotype  those  prmciples,  ci\il  and  rehgious,  which  it  is  the  glory  of 
our  forefathers  to  have  transmitted  to  theii"  posterity.  While  rendering 
due  respect  to  the  Reformers,  and  honoring  the  men  of  past  times  who 
defended  the  great  truths  lying  at  the  foundation  of  Christian  hope, 
we  regard  it  as  notliing  less  than  Popery  in  principle  —  that  very 
thing  in  essence  which  we  profess  to  abhor  —  to  call  up  the  names  of 
illustrious  dead  as  the  infallible  expounders  of  the  Bible,  or  to  give 
our  language  the  semblance  of  assuming,  that  to  differ  from  current 
opinions  is  to  disown  Protestantism  and  to  favor  Romanism.  When 
shall  the  various  sections  of  the  Protestant  chm'ch  leam  fully,  and  act 
out  with  earnest  honesty,  the  lesson  of  heaven,  "  Call  no  man  your 
fether  upon  the  earth ;  for  one  is  your  Father,  which  is  in  heaven  "  ? 
In  some  instances  the  Reforuiers  were  WTong ;  in  others  they  were  but 
partially  enlightened.  They  wrote  not  a  few  things  that  cannot  be 
received.  Their  reasoning  is  often  inconsequential,  sometimes  absurd ; 
and  we  should  as  readily  believe  in  the  inspiration  of  the  apocryplial 
books  of  the  ]\Iaccabees  as  adopt  all  then*  opinions  \rith  implicit  faith. 
Verily  the  principle  of  Romanism  is  of  far  wider  range  and  more 
extended  influence  than  the  church  of  Rome.  The  church  of  England, 
with  all  her  excellence,  has  sometliing  of  it.  Nonconformists  have 
much  of  it.  Its  leaven  may  be  seen  quietly  impregnating  the  minds 
of  stereotyped  Dissenters,  in  phases  and  forms  innumerable.  —  Dr. 
Samuel  Davidson  :  Introduction  to  the  JVew  Testament,  vol.  iii.  pp. 
512--13. 

Any  use  of  a  creed,  or  a  constitution,  or  a  church  court,  or  a 
council,  tending  to  discountenance  the  free  investigation  of  the  Bible 
on  any  and  every  article  whetlier  of  belief  or  of  practice,  or  to  sliicld 
any  portion  of  the  church  agiiinst  those  changes  to  which  she  ever  has 
been  and  still  is  constantly  liable  from  the  j)rogressive  ad\'ancement  of 


180  INKFFICACY   OF   CIIEEDS. 

oiblical  knowledge,  is  a  usurpation  of  the  rights  of  God  over  the  con- 
sciences and  understiindings  of  men.  It  is  rehgious  despotism  under 
whatever  specious  forms  it  may  be  exercised,  and  with  whatever 
semblance  of  earnest  contention  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  tlie 
s;;ints  it  may  be  advocated.  —  JVew  Englander  for  April,  1844 ; 
vol.  ii.  pp.  207-8. 

^  2.  Inefficacy  and  Pernicious  Results  ok  requiuing   an   Assent 

OK  A    SUBSCKIPTION   TO   CrKEDS  AND   ARTICLES  OK    FaITH. 

Their  lu-ging  of  subscription  [the  urging  of  subscription  by  church 
governors]  to  their  own  articles,  is  but  lacessere  et  irritare  morbos 
ecdesi(e,  which  otherwise  would  exercise  and  spend  themselves. . . .  lie 
seeketh  not  unity,  but  division,  who  exacteth  that  in  words  wliich  men 
are  content  to  yield  in  action.  And  it  is  tine  there  are  some  which, 
as  I  am  persuaded,  will  not  easily  offend  by  inconformity,  who,  not- 
withstanding, make  some  conscience  to  subscribe.  —  Lord  Bacon  : 
Advertisement  concerning  Controversies ;  in  Works,  vol.  ii.  p,  418. 

The  requiring  subscrij)tions  to  the  Tlui"t\-nine  Ai'ticles  is  a  great 
imposition.  .  .  .  The  greater  part  [of  those  that  serve  in  the  church] 
subscrilie  without  ever  examining  them ;  and  others  do  it  because 
they  must  do  it,  though  they  cm  hardly  siitisty-  their  consciences  about 
some  things  in  them.  —  Bisuop  Burnet  :  History  of  His  Own 
Time,  vol.  iv.  p.  410. 

With  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  explained  by  Atlia- 
nasius  or  any  other  man,  I  cannot  look  upon  it  to  be  so  fundamental 
in  religion  as  to  think  we  should  be  guilty  of  sin,  m  consenting  to 
revise,  or  even  to  change  it.  If  in  tliis  I  difi'er  from  some,  I  have  others 
to  support  me ;  nay,  I  have  the  great  principle  of  all  the  ProtesUmt 
churches  in  the  world  in  my  favor ;  for  it  is  a  principle  with  them  all 
to  admit  the  fliUibility  of  all  human  exj)li&ations  of  Scripture-  Every 
human  explication,  then,  of  the  Trinity  may  be  an  erroneous  explica- 
tion ;  and  what  may  be  an  error  ainnot  and  ought  not  to  be  uiiposed 
as  a  fimdamentiil  Christian  verity.  —  Bishop  Watson  :  Expediency  of 
Revising  trie  Liturgy,  p.  67  ;  apiul  Christ.  Reformer  for  June,  IH'JJ. 

Sul)jects  purely  speculative  should  be  left  free.  If  some  are  so  l)old 
as  to  determine,  —  who  hath  a  right  so  to  do,  in  matters  of  whose 
nature,  it  is  generally  allowed,  no  one  Gin  have  any  intuition,  ])crce[)- 
tion,  or  knowledge  ?  Who,  then,  will  j)resume  to  say  positivcly^wiuit 
a  num  is  or  is  not  to  believe?     To  attempt  an  cxplaiuition  of  these 


INEFF!CACY   OF   CIIEEDS.  1^1 

things,  or  to  make  men  undei'stond  them,  is  equally  ridiculous  as  to  bid 
the  blind  to  see,  or  the  deaf  to  hear.  How  necessary  it  is,  thei'efore,  to 
read  the  Sci"ipture,  that  we  might  with  certainty  know  what  we  should 
believe,  and  might  not  be  loaded  with  articles,  which,  if  not  altogether 
useless,  are  inditi'erent,  and  will  not  make  us  either  the  wiser  or  the 
better !  Our  time  Mill  be  more  properly  employed  in  learning  our 
dutj,  than  in  exercising  a  vain  curiosity  after  mysteries.  Bad  actions 
are  worse  than  eiToneous  opuoions.  The  latter  flow  from  a  weak  and 
mist;iken  judgment :  the  former  proceed  from  a  wicked  and  corrupt 
heai't.  The  one  will  be  forgiven ;  the  other,  without  repentance,  never. 
....  Ai'ticles  of  faith  should  be  few  in  number,  and  such  as  are  appa- 
rently and  absolutely  necessary,  so  that  to  refuse  assent  to  them  would 
be  absm'd.  —  James  Penn,  B.  A.,  Under-master  of  Cluist's  Hospital : 
Tracts,  p.  13;  apud  Manning's  Vindication  of  Dissent,  pp.  25-6. 

A  long  com-se  of  experience  has  clearly  demonstrated  the  inefficacy 
of  creeds  and  confessions  to  perpetuate  religious  beHef.  Of  this  the 
only  taithful  depositoiy  is  not  that  which  is  "  written  with  ink,"  but  on 
the  "  fleshly  fcibles  of  the  heart."  The  spii-it  of  error  is  too  subtile  and 
voktile  to  be  held  by  such  chains.  Whoever  is  acquainted  with 
ecclesiasticiil  history  must  know,  that  pubHc  creeds  and  confessions 
have  occasioned  more  controversies  than  they  have  composed;  and 
that,  when  they  ceased  to  be  the  subject  of  dispute,  they  have  become 
antiquated  and  obsolete.  A  vasf  majority  of  tlae  Dissenters  of  the 
present  day  hold  precisely  the  same  reUgious  tenets  which  the  Puritans 
did  two  centuries  ago,  because  it  is  the  instruction  they  have  uniformly 
received  from  their  pastors ;  and,  for  the  same  reason,  the  articles  of 
the  national  church  are  almost  eflaced  from  the  minds  of  its  members, 
because  they  have  long  been  neglected  or  denied  by  the  majority  of 
those  who  occupy  its  pulpits.  We  have  never  heard  of  the  church 
of  Geneva  altering  its  confession,  but  we  know  that  Voltaire  boasted 
there  was  not  in  his  time  a  Calvinist  in  the  city ;  nor  have  we  heard 
of  any  proposed  amendment  in  the  ci'eed  of  the  Scotch,  yet  it  is  cer- 
tiiin  the  doctrines  of  that  creed  are  preached  by  a  rapidly  decreasing 
minority  of  the  Scottish  clergy.  From  these  and  similar  facts,  we  may 
fciirly  conclude,  that  the  doctrines  of  the  church,  with  or  without  sub- 
scription, are  sure  to  perpetuate  themselves  where  they  are  faitlifully 
preached ;  but  tliat  the  mere  circumstance  of  their  being  subscribed 
will  neither  secm'e  their  being  j)!  cached  nor  beUeved.  —  Hobekt 
Hall  :  Review  of  Zeal  without  Innovation ;  in  JVorks,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  2G1-2. 

16 


182  INEFFICACY  OF   CREEDS. 

Men  may  incorporate  their  doctrines  in  creeds  or  articles  of  faith, 
and  sing  them  in  hymns ;  and  this  may  be  all  both  useful  and  edifj-ing, 
if  the  doctrine  be  true :  but,  in  every  question  which  in\olves  the 
eternal  interests  of  man,  the  Holy  Scriptures  must  be  appealed  to,  in 
union  with  reason,  their  great  commcntixtor.  lie  who  forms  his  creed 
or  confession  of  faith  without  these,  may  believe  any  thuig  or  nothing, 
as  the  cimning  of  others  or  his  o\\'n  caprices  may  dict^ite.  Human 
creeds  and  confessions  of  faith  have  been  often  put  in  the  place  of  the 
Bible,  to  the  disgrace  both  of  revelation  and  reivson.  Let  tJiose  go 
away,  let  these  be  retained,  whatever  the  consequence,  "  Fiat  justitia : 
mat  coelum."  —  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  :  Commentary,  vol.  vi.  List  page. 

Who  would  not  shrink  from  asserting,  that  a  heathen  of  nrtuous 
life  must  without  doubt  perish  everlastingly  ?  Still  more,  who  is 
there  that  in  his  heart  pronounces  endless  jnuiishment  on  the  earnest 
and  conscientious  man  who  lives  in  tlie  faith  and  love  of  Christ,  but 
yet  is  intellectually  unable  to  word  his  creed  in  the  precise  phraseo- 
logy adopted  by  the  Athanasian  formula  ?  ...  It  is  a  pubhc  scandal, 
and  very  injurious  to  national  morality,  that  such  emj)hatic  words 
should  be  solemnly  used  in  our  churches,  and  yet  accepted  by  no  one ; 
for,  though  each  man's  conscience  may  be  reheved  by  the  consciousness 
that  the  dissent  from  the  natural  meaning  is  so  universally  understood 
as  to  deceive  no  one,  the  example  of  such  vehement  yet  really  dis- 
avowed assertion  is  grievously  calculated  to  countenance  the  low 
morality  wliich  prevails  regarding  pul)lic  professions.  .  .  .  Scripture 
never  intended  to  reveal  to  us  the  real  and  absolute  essence  of  the 
divine  nature  :  it  could  not  be  grasj)ed  by  the  human  understanding.  — 
JVorlh  British  Review  for  August,  1852;  Amer.  edit  vol.  xii.  p.  205. 

The  writer  of  the  preceding  paragraph,  however,  saj's  that  "nowhere  is 
the  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  expounded  witli  greater  felicity  and 
greater  power  than  in  the  Athanasian  Creed."  Might  we  not  add,  certainly 
not  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures? 

In  resjiect  to  the  original  right  of  private  judgment,  —  the  right  to 
call  in  question  any  human  symbols  or  confessions,  and  to  bring  them 
all  to  the  simjile  test  of  God's  holy  word,  —  why  should  it  be  thought, 
or  even  indirectly  intimated,  that  it  is  presumption  and  wckedness 
for  any  individiuil  now  to  question  the  correctness  of  some  opinions 
defended  by  I,utlier  and  Melancthon,  by  Zuingle  and  Calvin,  or  by 
Turretin  and  Gomer  ?  Are  tliere  no  Christians  now  who  have  as 
mudi  knowledge  of  the  Bil)le  as  these  men  ?  Are  there  none  who 
have  as  higli  a  re-eronce  for  it.  as  much  sincere  attiichinent  to  it? 


INEFFICACY  OF   CREEDS.  183 

Is  it  ncjt  a  matter  of  wonder,  that,  after  so  many  experiments 

utterly  imsuccessful,  the  churches  should  still  continue  to  expect  and 
demand  the  accomjilishment  of  that  from  creeds  and  councils,  and  from 
authority,  -wliich  never  can  be  brought  about  except  by  scriptural 
reason  and  argument  ?  Have  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  English, 
church  secured  her  uniform  orthodoxy  and  evangelical  spirit  ?  History, 
from  the  time  of  Archl)ishop  Laud,  will  answer  this  question.  Have 
the  church  of  Scotland  been  made  unifonn  in  sentiment  by  their  creed  ? 
Look  through  its  history  for  the  last  century,  and  any  one  may  easily 
learn.  Have  the  Presbyterian  chm-ches  in  England  and  America  been 
made  uniform  m  their  fiith  by  reason  of  their  creed  ?  and  are  they  still 
of  one  mind  ?  Alas !  we  are  almost  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  their 
dissensions  have  been  mcreased  by  their  sjTnbols ;  so  much  is  surely 
ti'ue,  viz.,  that,  when  dissensions  have  existed,  they  have  been  greatly 
aggravated  by  the  very  reason,  that  accusation  for  supposed  departure 
from  the  standards  has  been  rendered  more  intense  and  urgent,  and  has 
assumed  more  of  the  air  of  authority.  .  .  .  Reason,  argument  —  rather 
I  should  say,  the  Scriptures  urged  by  reason  and  argument  —  are  the 
only  ultimate  means  to  be  relied  on,  so  far  as  means  employed  by  men 
are  concerned.  —  Moses  Stuart,  in  Biblical  Repository  for  July, 
1836 ;  vol.  ^'iii.  pp.  34,  67-8. 

Dogmatical  propositions,  such  as  are  commonly  woven  into  creeds 
and  catechisms  of  doctrine,  have  not  the  certainty  they  are  commonly 
supposed  to  have.  They  only  give  us  the  seeing  of  the  authors  at 
the  precise  stiindpoint  occupied  by  them  at  the  time,  and  they  are 
ti-ue  only  as  seen  from  that  point ;  not  even  there,  save  in  a  proximate 
sense.  ...  In  the  original  formation  of  any  creed,  catechism,  or  system 
of  di%inity,  there  is  always  a  latent  element  of  figure,  which  probably 
the  authors  know  not  of,  but  ^^•ithout  which  it  is  neither  true  to  them 
nor  to  anybody.  But,  in  a  long  course  of  repetition,  the  figure  dies 
out,  and  the  formula  settles  into  a  literality,  and  then,  if  the  repetition 
goes  on,  it  is  really  an  assent  to  what  is  not  true ;  for  that  wliieh  was 
ti'ue  at  the  begiiming  has  now  become  untrue,  —  and  that,  however 
paradoxical  it  may  seem,  by  being  assented  to.  .  .  .  Considering  the 
infirmities  of  Language,  therefore,  all  formularies  of  doctrine  should  be 
held  in  a  certiiin  spii-it  of  accommodation.  They  ainnot  be  pressed  to 
the  letter,  for  the  very  sufficient  reason  that  the  letter  is  never  true. 
They  can  be  regarded  only  as  proximate  rei)i-csentations,  and  should 
tlierefore  be  accc])ted,  not  as  laws  over  belief  or  opinion,  but  more  as 
badges  of  consent  and  good  understanding.     Tl\e  moment  we  begin 


184  INKFFICACY   OF  CREEDS. 

to  speak  of  them  as  guards  and  tests  of  purity,  we  confess  tliat  we 
have  lost  the  sense  of  pui-ity,  and,  mth  about  equal  ccrtiiinty,  the 
virtue  itself.  .  .  .  The  greatest  objection  that  I  know  to  creeds  —  that 
is,  to  creeds  of  a  theoretic  or  dogmatic  character  —  is,  that  they  make 
so  many  appearances  of  division,  where  there  really  is  none  till  the 
ajjpearances  make  it.  They  are  likely  also,  unless  some  debate  or 
controversy  sharpens  the  mind  to  them  and  keeps  them  aUve,  to  die 
out  of  meaning,  and  be  assented  to  at  last  as  a  mere  jingle  of  words. 
Thus  we  have,  in  many  of  our  orthodox  formulas  of  Trinity,  the 
phrase,  "  the  same  in  substance ; "  and  yet  how  many  are  there,  even 
of  our  theologkns,  to  whom  it  will  now  seem  a  heresy  to  say  this  with 
a  meaning !  And  the  clause  following,  "  equal  in  power  and  glory," 
will  be  scarcely  less  support;ible,  when  a  view  of  Trinity  is  offered 
wliich  gi\es  the  terms  an  earnest  and  real  significance.  —  Dr.  Horace 
BusilXELL:  God  in  Christ,  pp.  79-83. 

Though  creeds  are  understood  neither  by  their  authors  nor  by  any  one 
else,  and  whatever  was  ti-ue  in  them  originally  becomes  by  repetition  untrue, 
and  thougli  they  are  quite  useless  as  guards  and  tests  of  purity  of  doctrine, 
Dr.  BusiiNKLL  says  (p.  82)  that  he  has  been  ready  to  accept  as  great  a 
number  of  them  as  fell  in  his  way. 

Creeds  fabricated  by  priestly  craft  constitute  the  heaviest  and  most 
con-oding  chain  ever  fastened  on  human  minds.  The  inquirer  after 
truth  is  drav^Ti  away  from  the  words  and  example  of  the  great  Teacher, 
and  confused  by  those  who  shout  aroimd  him  their  own  articles  so 
violently,  that  the  voice  of  the  only  infallible  Master  is  nearly  drowned. 
"And  what  are  these  substitutes  for  the  plain  teachings  of  the  New 
Testimient  but  miserable  skeletons,  freezing  abstractions,  unintelligible 
dogmas,  as  dubious  to  the  understanding  as  they  are  repugnant  to  the 
heart  ?  The  confessions  of  faith,  books  of  discipline,  and  creed- 
concoctions,  in  gcncnd,  adoi)ted  by  most  Protest;mt  sects,  embody 
the  grand  idea  of  infallil)ility,  as  truly  as  the  decrees  of  Trent  and  the 
Vatican ;  and,  if  I  were  comjjelled  to  choose  between  the  two,  most 
assuredly  would  I  prefer  the  desj)otism  of  Kome ;  for  that  has  some 
historicixl  dignitj',  if  no  other  merit.  —  E.  L.  Magoon  :  Republican 
Christianity,  pp.  242-3. 

So  say  all  true  Protestants,  extracts  from  whom  might  occupy  many 
vfilumes.  Bnt,  alas!  how  frequently  amongst  those  who  arrogate  to  them- 
selves exclusively  the  title  of  "  Orthodox,"  are  the  decisions  of  fallible 
councils  and  erring  individuals  made  the  rule  of  Christian  faith  and  com 
muuiuu ! 


REVISION   OF   COMMON   VERSION   OF  THE   BIBLE.  185 


SECT.   IV.  —  NEED    OF    REVISING   THE  AUTHORIZED  VERSION   OF  THE 
BIBLE,   AND   CORRECTING   IT  FROM  A  PURE  TEXT. 

The  hold  which  the  mistranslations  of  the  authorized  version  [of  the  Bible]  have 
on  the  uiinds  of  men  gives  to  some  ecclesiastical  errors  a  tenacity  of  life  almost 
Indestructible.  —  Eclectic  Review  for  June,  1841. 

Depend  on  it,  no  truth,  no  matter  of  fact  fairly  laid  open,  can  ever  subvert  true 
religion.  — Richard  Bentley. 

Whenever  it  shall  be  thought  proper  to  set  forth  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, for  the  public  use  of  our  church,  to  better  advantage  than  as 
they  appear  in  the  present  English  translation,  the  expediency  of  which 
grows  every  day  more  and  more  evident,  a  revision  or  correction  of  that 
translation  may  perhaps  be  more  advisable  than  to  attempt  an  entirely 
new  one.  For,  as  to  the  style  and  language,  it  admits  but  of  little 
improvement ;  but,  in  respect  of  the  sense  and  the  accm-acy  of  inter- 
pretation, the  improvements  of  which  it  is  capable  are  great  and  num- 
berless. —  Bishop  Lowth  :  Translation  of  Isaiah,  Prel.  Diss.  p.  li. 

A  new  transktion  of  the  Scriptm-es  ,  .  .  has  long  been  devoutly 
wished  by  many  of  the  best  friends  to  religion  and  our  established 
church,  wlio,  though  not  insensible  of  the  merit  of  our  present  version 
in  common  use,  and  justly  believing  it  to  be  equal  to  the  very  best 
that  is  now  extant  in  any  language,  ancient  or  modem,  sorrowfully 
confess  that  it  is  still  fiir  from  being  so  perfect  as  it  might  and  should 
be ;  that  it  often  represents  the  eiTors  of  a  faulty  original  with  too 
exact  a  resemblance ;  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  it  has  misbiken  the 
true  sense  of  the  Hebrew  in  not  a  few  places ;  and  sometimes  substi- 
tuted an  interpretation  so  obscure  and  perplexed,  that  it  becomes 
almost  impossible  to  make  out  with  it  any  sense  at  all.  And,  if  this 
be  the  case,  shall  we  not  be  soHcitous  to  obtain  a  remedy  for  such 
glaring  imperfections  ?  —  Dr.  Benjamin  Blayney  :  Translation  of 
Jeremiah,  Prel.  Disc.  p.  ix. 

As  this  collation  was  made  by  some  of  the  most  distinguished 
scholars  in  the  age  of  James  the  Fu'st,  it  is  probable  that  our  author- 
ized version  is  as  faithful  a  representation  of  the  original  Scriptures  as 
could  have  been  formed  at  that  period.  But  when  we  consider  the 
immense  accession  which  has  been  since  made,  both  to  our  critical  and 
to  oui-  piiilologlcal  aj^jxiratus ;  when  we  consider  that  the  whole  mass 
of  literature,  commencing  with  the  London  Polyglot  and  continued 
to  Griesbach's  Greek  Testiiment,  was  collected  subsequently  to  that 

16* 


186  REVISION  OF  COMMON   VERSION  OF  TIIE  BIBLE. 

period ;  when  we  consider  that  the  most  important  sources  of  intelli- 
gence for  the  interpretation  of  the  original  Scriptm-es  were  likewise 
oj)ened  after  that  period,  —  we  cannot  possiblj-  pretend,  that  our 
authorized  version  does  not  require  amendment.  .  •  .  Dr.  Macknigiit 
goes  so  far  as  to  say  of  our  authorized  vei-sion,  "  It  is  by  no  means 
such  a  just  representation  of  the  inspired  originals  as  merits  to  be 
implicitly  relied  on  for  determining  the  conti-overted  articles  of  the 
Christian  faith,  and  for  quieting  the  dissensions  wliich  have  rent  tlie 
church."  —  Bishop  M.vrsii:  Lectures,  pp.  29<5-G. 

The  warmest  advocate  of  om*  translation  caimot  pronounce  it  free 
from  faults,  but  must  acknowledge  tliat  there  still  are  in  it  sonae 
wrong  interpretiitions,  wliieh  either  contradict  the  sense  of  the  origi- 
nal, or  obscure  it.  And  can  there  be  any  inconvenience  or  danger  in 
proposing  to  correct  such  errors  ?  Would  it  not  be  conducive  to  the 
advancement  of  the  gospel  to  remove,  if  possible,  and  under  just 
authority,  every  material  error  from  oui-  publicly  received  version,  for 
the  sake  of  those  who  do  not  understiind  the  origiiml.^  —  BiSUOP 
Burgess:  Tracts  on  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  pp.  241-2. 

[The  common  version  of  the  Bible,  undertaken  by  the  orders  of 
King  James  the  First,  and  first  pubUshed  in  the  year  1611]  is  level 
to  the  understanding  of  the  cottiger,  and  fit  to  meet  the  eye  of  the 
critic,  the  poet,  and  the  philosopher.  ...  No  work  has  ever  been  so 
generally  read,  or  more  universally  admired ;  and  such  is  its  complete 
possession  of  the  pubhc  mind,  that  no  transktion  dittering  materially 
from  it  can  ever  become  acceptable  in  tliis  country. ...  It  was  [however] 
not  made  from  corrected  or  criticiil  texts  of  the  origiiuls,  but  from  the 
Masoretic  Hebrew  text,  and  from  the  common  printed  Greek  text  of 
the  New  Testament.  Consequently,  whatever  imperl'ections  belonged 
to  the  originals  at  the  time  must  be  expected  in  the  version.  .  .  .  That 
it  is  capable  of  improvement  will  generally  be  admitted,  and  Jiat  we 
are  in  possession  of  the  means  by  which  that  improvement  could  be 
made  is  equally  unquestionable.  —  Wm.  Orme  :  Bibliotfieca  Biblica, 
pp.  37-9. 

That  the  text  ftiUed  the  textus  receptus,  or  received  text,  is  far 
from  supplying  such  a  desideratum  [as  a  new  revision  of  the  autliorized 
version  of  the  Bible]  will  be  manifest  in  considermg  its  origin  and 
quidity.  That  text  is  no  other  than  the  result  of  the  various  transcrip- 
tural  errors,  omissions,  and  additions,  very  partially  and  imperfectly 
corrected,  whicli  have  accrued  to  the  primitive  text,  during  the  tiiou- 
isUiJ   ()l)sfMu-e  aues   that  intervened   between   the  aj^e   of  the   oldest 


REVISION  OF  COMMON  VERSION  OF  THE  BIBLE.  187 

sui'viving  manuscript  and  tlie  invention  of  printing Every 

one  who  is  verj'  sensitive  for  the  purity  and  integrity  of  tlie  evangelical 
records  will  feel  it  to  be  of  the  first  importvnce  that  the  English  reader 
should  at  length  be  put  in  possession  of  the  text  of  the  Sacred  Volume, 
purged  from  the  heterogeneous  incrustations  which  its  surface  has 
contracted  during  its  passage  down  the  stream  of  dark  and  turbid 
ages.  ...  It  is  imperative  that  we  should  at  length  secure  and  com- 
plete what  GRiESBACn  had  begun,  by  throwing  altogether  out  of  the 
text  every  thing  apocryphal  and  spm-ious,  and  thus  attiin  to  a  con- 
formity Avith  primitive  Christiim  antiquity.  —  Granville  Penn  : 
Annotations  to  the  Book  of  the  JVew  Covenant,  pp.  18,  47-8. 

RespecUible  and  excellent  as  our  common  version  is,  considering 
the  time  and  circumstances  mider  wliich  it  was  made,  no  person  will 
contend  that  it  is  incapable  of  important  amendment.  A  temperate, 
impartial,  and  aireful  revision  would  be  an  invaluable  benefit  to  the 
cause  of  Christianity;  and  the  very  laudable  exertions  which  are  now 
made  to  circulate  the  Bible  render  such  a  revision,  at  the  present  time, 
a  matter  of  still  more  pressing  necessity.  It  is  a  laUuig  of  the  same 
kind,  when  the  text  of  the  common  Hebrew  and  Greek  editions  is 
adduced  as  indubitably  and  in  every  case  the  divine  original,  without 
any  previous  consideration  or  inquiry.  .  .  .  Every  Christian  who  is 
moderately  informed  on  these  subjects  knows,  tliat  the  early  editions 
of  the  original  Scriptm-es  could  not  possess  a  text  so  well  ascertained 
as  those  wliich  the  superior  means  and  the  diligent  industry  of  modern 
editors  have  been  eiubled  to  attain ;  that  from  these  early  editions  all 
the  established  Protestant  versions  were  made ;  and  that  an  accurate 
and  impartial  criticism  of  the  pubhshed  text,  as  well  as  of  any  tmnsla- 
tion,  must  He  at  the  foundation  of  all  satisfactory  deduction  of  theo- 
logical doctrine  from  the  words  of  Scripture.  —  Dr.  John  Pye  Smith  : 
Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Messiah,  pp.  29-41. 


These  extracts,  which  might  easily  iiave  been  increased  by  quotations 
from  Dr.  David  Duuell,  Dr.  John  Symonds,  Dr.  Geokge  Cami'Bell, 
Archbishop  Newcome,  S.  T.  Colekidge,  Dr.  Thomas  Aknolu,  and  uiauy 
others,  are  given  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  showing,  that  the  dissatisfaction 
with  the  received  text  and  common  version  of  the  Scriptures,  so  often  mani- 
fested by  Unitarians,  does  not  involve  any  irreverence  for  the  word  of  God; 
a  species  of  impiety  with  which  tiiey  have  been  often  charged.  Indeed, 
none  are  more  accustomed  than  learned  and  devout  Trinitarians  to  change 
tlie  translation  of  certain  passages  in  the  Bible,  notwithstanding  the  supersti- 
tious reverence  paid  bv  others  to  the  authorized  version 


188  REVELATION,  BUT  NOT  THE  BIBLE,  INFALLIBUS. 


BtCT.   V.  —  THE   SACRED   BOOKS   NOT   INSPIRED   RECORDS,   BUT 
RECORDS  OF   REVELATION. 

The  law  by  Moses  came ; 
But  peace  and  truth  and  love 
Were  brought  by  Christ,  a  nobler  name, 
Descendju;;  from  above. 

Isaac  Watts. 

§  1.    The  Dogma  of  the  Verbal  or  the  Plenary  Insimratiox  of 

THE    BlULE   NOT    SuiTOKTEU    BY   EVIDENCE. 

If  any  man  is  of  opinion,  that  Moses  might  write  the  history  of 
those  actions  wliich  he  himself  did  or  was  present  at,  \vithout  an 
immediate  reveLition  of  them ;  or  that  Solomon,  by  his  natm-al  and 
acquired  wisdom,  might  speak  those  wise  sayings  which  are  in  his 
Proverbs ;  or  the  evangelists  might  write  what  they  he;u-d  and  saw,  or 
what  they  had  good  assurance  of  from  others,  as  St.  Luke  tells  he 
did;  or  that  St.  Paul  miglit  write  for  his  cloak  and  parclunents  at 
Troas,  and  salute  by  name  his  friends  and  brethren ;  or  tliat  he  might 
advise  Timothy  to  drink  a  httle  wine,  &c.,  without  the  immediate  dic- 
tate of  the  Spirit  of  God,  —  he  seems  to  have  reason  on  his  side.  For 
that  men  may,  wthout  an  immediate  revelation,  write  those  things 
wiiich  they  think  without  a  revelation,  seems  very  pLiin.  And  tliat 
they  did  so,  there  is  tliis  ])robal)le  argument  for  it;  beaiuse  we  tiiid 
that  the  evangeUsts,  in  rebting  the  discoin-ses  of  Christ,  are  very  far 
from  agreeing  in  the  particukr  expressions  and  words,  though  they  do 
agree  in  the  substance  of  the  discourses :  but,  if  the  words  had  been 
dictated  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  must  have  agreed  in  them.  For 
when  St.  Luke  dilfers  from  St.  Matthew  in  reLxting  wliat  our  Saviour 
said,  it  is  impossible  that  they  should  both  relate  it  right  as  to  the  very 
words  and  form  of  cxjjrcssion  ;  but  they  both  reLite  the  substxnce  of 
wliat  he  said.  And,  il'  it  had  been  of  concernment  that  every  thing 
that  they  wrote  should  be  dictiited  ad  apiceni,  to  a  tittle,  by  the  Sj)irit 
of  God,  it  is  of  the  same  concernment  still,  that  the  providence  of  God 
should  have  secured  the  Scriptures  since  to  a  tittle  from  the  least 
alteration ;  which  that  it  is  not  done,  appears  by  the  various  readings 
both  of  the  Old  and  New  Tcstimcnt,  concerning  wliich  no  man  can 
in£iUibly  say  tliat  this  is  right,  and  not  the  other.  It  seems  surticient 
in  this  matter  to  assert,  that  the  S])irit  of  God  did  reveal  to  the  pen* 


REVELATION,   BUT   NOT   THE  BIBLE,   INFALLIBLE.  189 

men  of  the  Scrijitures  what  was  necessary  to  be  revealed;  anl,  as  to 
all  other  tilings,  that  he  did  superintend  them  in  the  writing  of  it,  so 
far  as  to  secure  them  from  any  material  error  or  mistake  in  what  they 
have  deUvered.  —  Archbishup  Tillotson  :  Sermon  2*22 ;  mi  fVorlis, 
voL  xi.  pp.  185-6. 

In  the  selection  of  their  arguments,  Jesus  and  the  apostles  could 
not  at  all  times  confine  themselves  to  those  truths  which  were  most 
convincing  to  themselves  and  other  really  enlightened  men  j  but  they 
were  also  imder  the  necessity  of  employing  such  reasonings  as  carried 
most  weight  with  their  contemporaries,  and  certain  of  then-  hearers  or 
readers.  .  .  .  Hence  it  is  that  many  of  those  arguments  wliich  the 
founders  of  Christianity  made  use  of  are  not  perfectly  con%incing  to 
us ;  as,  for  example.  Matt.  xxii.  30-32.  2  Coi\  iii.  7.  1  Cor.  xi.  4—10. 
Ileb.  V. — ix. ;  which  contain  many  arguments  of  tjiis  nature,  which 
were  adajJted  only  to  the  modes  of  thinking  of  the  Jews.  Jesus  and 
the  apostles  adajJted  themselves  to  the  modes  of  thinking  chiefly 
of  the  Jews,  in  their  citations  and  apphcations  of  passages  of  the  Old 
Testimient,  when  propomiduig  certiiin  truths  of  the  gospel.  This  is 
designated  the  special  accommodation  of  passages  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment to  the  expression  of  the  truths  and  olijects  of  the  New. . . .  Thus 
Jesus  applied  what  had  been  said  by  David  of  Ahithophel  to  Judas 
Iscariot,  John  xiii.  18.     In  this  maimer,  in  Matt.  ii.  15-18,  are  several 

passages  of  Scriptm^e  appUed  to  Jesus  and  his  liistory As  the 

four  evangehsts  narrate  every  thing  either  as  they  saw  and  heard  it 
themselves,  or  as  they  obtained  it  from  credible  eye-\\itnesses ;  but  as 
every  mdiA^dual  regards  an  object  from  his  own  standing  point;  so  in 
these  narrations  they  very  often  vary  ik'om  one  another,  so  as,  however, 

to  coincide  in  the  main As  to  what  especially  relates  to  the 

contradictions  which  exist  between  passages  of  the  Old  Testament, 
when  it  is  talcen  into  consideration  tliat  the  Bible  consists  of  a  collec- 
tion of  books,  written  at  various  times  through  a  course  of  many 
centuries,  some  of  them  composed  at  the  earhest  periods  of  the 
existence  of  the  human  race,  and  all  continually  transcribed  by  later 
copyists,  and  frequently  corrupted  in  many  passages  by  the  hands  of 
correctors,  it  could  scarcely  tail  to  contain  contradictions.  .  .  .  The 
religious  notions  of  the  primitive  race  of  munkind  were  universally 
sensuous  and  imperfect.  They  became  gnuluallj'  more  pure  and 
jjerfect.  Tliis  perfectil)ihty  of  subjective  religion  was  ])rogressively 
developed  until  the  time  of  Christ.  When,  in  the  course  of  time, 
men  had  attained  clearer  and  more  correct  views  of  divine  tilings, 


190  REVELATION.   BUT   NOT   THE   BIBLE,   INFALLIBLE. 

contradictions  must  naturally  have  tiilvcn  pLice  between  men's  present 
and  past  religious  notions.  For  instance,  in  the  books  of  Moses, 
unclean  animals  ai'e  forbidden  to  be  eaten.     A  voice  proclaims  to 

Peter,  "  Eat  of  th(.'se  unclean  animals,"  Acts  x A  round  number 

is  often  put  lor  a  more  definite  one.  Matt.  xvii.  1,  Jesus  took  with 
him  his  tlux-e  disciples  up  the  mountain  six  days  alter  tlie  prediction 
of  liis  suli'erings ;  but,  according  to  Luke,  it  kippened  eight  dajs  after 
(ix.  28) :  it  amounts  to  one  and  the  same  tlung.  A  writer  is  some- 
times accustomed  to  ascribe  to  several  individuals  Avhat  took  place 
with  respect  to  but  one  of  them.  Thus  the  tliieves  on  the  cross, 
according  to  ^latthew,  reviled  Jesus ;  but,  according  to  Luke,  it  was 
only  one.  The  sacred  liistory  must  be  judged  of  according  to  the 
genius  of  those  times.  It  must  be  recollected,  tliat  theii-  authors  were 
not  men  of  learning ;  that  they  were  but  human  beings,  and  might 
therefore  err ;  and  that  it  did  not  seem  fit  to  Divme  Wisdom  to  pi"e- 
serve  them  by  an  extraordinaiy  influence  from  hannless  errors  in 
matters  of  secondary  importance.  .  .  .  Luke  and  Mark  were  not  pre- 
sent to  heiir  and  see  all  that  Jesus  said  or  did.  Thcj-  therefore 
nai'iiite  what  they  had  received  from  eye-witnesses,  or  had  read  in 
other  histories  of  the  life  of  Jesus  then  extimt.  When  the)'  subse- 
quently wrote  these  down  from  memory  only,  this  might  have  easily 
given  rise  to  a  difference  m  the  naiTations.  —  George  Frederic 
Seiler  :  Biblical  Henneneuiics,  translated  by  Dr.  Wiiham  Wright, 
§§  267-8,  302,  323,  325-6. 

Wo  have  made  this  large  extract  from  Dr.  Seiler,  because,  though  a 
German,  lie  w:is  so  good  a  man  and  so  orthodox  a  divine  as  to  receive 
the  highest  encomiums  of  his  translator  and  of  Dr.  John  Pye  Smith.  These 
writers  sa^',  that  his  tiieological  publications,  one  of  which  wiis  a  work  on 
the  Deity  of  Christ,  "  are  distinguished  by  their  candid  and  luminous  method 
of  examining  evidence  and  discussing  dilliculties,  by  their  spirit  of  practical 
piety,  and  by  their  tendency  to  show  the  harmony  which  ever  subsists 
between  the  highest  exertions  of  reason  in  all  the  imi)roveinents  of  science 
and  literature,  and  the  pure  religion  of  the  liible."  See  Memoir  of  Seiler, 
prefixed  to  Dr.  Wright's  translation  of  "  Biblical  Uermeneutics." 

With  a  full  persuasion  of  soul  resjiecting  all  the  ai-ticles  of  the 
Christian  faith, ...  I  receive  wiUingly  also  the  ti-uth  of  the  history ; 
namely,  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  did  come  to  Samuel,  to  Isaiah,  to 
others;  and  that  the  words  which  g.i\e  utterance  to  tlie  s;mie  are 
faitlifully  recorded.  Jkit  though  the  origin  of  the  words,  even  as  of 
the  miraculous  acts,  be  .supernatui-al ;  yi't,  tlie  f'onuer  oucc  uttered,  the 


REVELATION,   BUT  NOT   THE  BIBLb,   1NFALL[BLE.  191 

latter  once  having  taken  their  place  among  the  phenomena  of  the  senses, 
the  faithful  recording  of  the  same  does  not  of  itself  imply,  or  seem  to 
require,  any  supernatural  working,  other  than  as  all  truth  and  goodness 
are  such.  ...  I  believe  the  writer  in  whatever  he  himself  relates  of  his 
own  authority,  and  of  its  origin ;  but  I  cannot  find  any  such  claim,  as 
the  doctrine  in  question  [that  all  that  exists  m  the  Sacred  Volume  was 
dictated  by  an  inlalHble  Intelligence]  su2:)poses,  made  by  these  writers, 
exphcitly  or  by  implication.  On  the  contrarj',  they  refer  to  other 
documents,  and  in  all  points  express  themselves  as  sober-minded  and 

veracious  writers  mider  ordinary  circumstances  are  known  to  do 

Say  that  the  Book  of  Job  tliroughout  was  dictated  by  an  infallible  Intel- 
ligence. Then  reperase  the  book,  and  still,  as  you  proceed,  try  to 
apply  the  tenet :  try  if  you  can  even  attach  any  sense  or  semblance  of 
meaning  to  the  speeches  wlaich  you  are  reading.  What!  were  the 
hollow  truisms,  the  unsufRcing  hall-truths,  the  false  assumptions,  and 
malignant  insinuations  of  the  superciUous  bigots  who  corruptly  de- 
fended the  ti'uth ;  —  were  the  impressive  facts,  the  piercing  outcries, 
the  pathetic  appeals,  and  the  close  and  powerful  reasorung  with  wtich 
the  poor  suffei'er  —  smarting  at  once  from  his  wounds,  and  from  the 
oil  of  vitriol  wliich  the  orthodox  liars  for  God  were  dropping  into 
them  —  impatiently,  but  uprightly  and  hoHly,  controverted  tliis  truth, 
while  in  will  and  in  spirit  he  clung  to  it ;  —  were  both  dictated  by  an 
infallible  Intelhgence  ?  Alas!  if, I  may  judge  from  the  manner  in 
which  both  indiscriminately  are  recited,  quoted,  appealed  to,  preached 
upon,  by  the  roviiniers  of  desk  and  pulpit,  I  cannot  doubt  that  they 
thmk  so,  or  mther,  without  thinking,  take  for  granted  that  so  they  are 

to  think. All  the  miracles  which  the  legends  of  monk  or  rabbi 

contain  can  scarcely  be  put  in  competition,  on  the  score  of  compHca- 
tion,  inexpUciibleness,  the  absence  of  all  intelligible  use  or  purpose,  and 
nf  circuitous  self-frustration,  ^^ith  those  that  must  be  assumed  by  the 
maintainers  of  this  doctrme,  in  order  to  give  effect  to  the  series  of 
miracles  by  which  all  the  nominal  composers  of  the  Hebrew  nation 
before  the  time  of  Ezra,  of  whom  there  are  any  remains,  were  succes- 
sively transformed  into  automaton  compositors,  so  that  the  original  text 
-should  be  in  sentiment,  image,  word,  syntax,  and  composition,  iin  exact 
impression  of  tlie  divine  copy  !  —  S.  T.  Coleridue  :  Confessions  of 
an  Inquiring  Spirit ;  in  Works,  vol.  v.  pp.  583-4,  593-4,  61:2. 

We  know  that  the  Catholics  look  with  as  great  horror  on  the  con- 
sequences of  denying  the  infliUibility  of  the  church  as  you  [the  Rev. 
John  Tucker]  can  do  on  those  of  donj  ing  the  entire  inspiration  of  the 


192  RKVELATION,   BUT   NOT   TUB  BIBLE,   INFALLIBLE. 

Scriptures ;  and  that,  to  come  nearer  to  the  point,  tlie  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures  in  points  of  physical  science  was  once  insisted  on  as 

stoutly  as  it  is  now  mamtiiined  with  regard  to  history It  is 

strange  to  see  how  much  of  ancient  history  consists  apparently  of 
patches  put  together  fi'om  various  quarters  without  iuiy  redaction.  Is 
not  this  Lirgely  tlie  cise  in  the  Books  of  Samuel,  Ivuigs,  and  Chroni- 
cles ?  For  instiuice,  are  not  clmp.  xxiv.  and  xx>i.  of  1  Sanuiel  merely 
different  versions  of  the  siime  event,  just  as  we  have  two  accounts  of 
the  creation  m  the  early  cliapters  of  Genesis  ?  And  must  not  chap- 
ters x\i.  and  xviL  of  the  same  book  be  also  from  dilferent  som-ces, 
the  account  of  David  in  the  one  being  quite  inconsistent  with  tliat 
in  the  other?  So,  again,  in  2  Clu'on.  xi.  20  and  xiii.  2,  there  is  a 
decided  diti'erence  iji  tiie  parentiige  of  Abijali's  mother,  which  is  curious 

on  an}'  sujjposition I  have  long  thought  that  the  greater  p;u't 

of  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  most  cert^unly  a  very  late  work,  of  the  time  of 
the  Maccabees ;  and  the  pretended  prophecy  about  the  Kings  of  Gre- 
cia  and  Persia,  and  of  the  North  and  South,  is  mere  history,  like  the 
poeticid  prophecies  in  Vu-gil  and  elsewhere.  Li  fact,  you  can  ti"ace 
distinctly  the  diite  when  it  was  written,  beciiuse  the  events  up  to  the 
date  are  given  with  historiud  minuteness,  toUilly  unlike  the  cliaracter 
of  real  prophecy ;  and,  bejond  that  date,  all  is  imaginary.  —  Dr. 
Txios.  Arnold:  Letters  20,  HI,  222;  in  Life  and  Correspondence, 
pp.  69,  2do,  3.58. 

In  his  "Tracts  for  the  Times  "  (Miscellaneous  Works,  pp.  285-6),  Dr. 
Aknolu,  after  stating  his  belief  in  the  inspiration  of  tlio  Scriptures,  says  that 
it  is  an  uii warranted  interpretation  of  the  term  "inspiration  "  to  sm>pose  it 
equivalent  to  a  connnunication  of  the  divine  perfections;  that  nian^'  of  our 
words  and  actions  are  spoken  and  done  by  the  inspiration  of  God's  Spirit; 
that  all  inspiration  docs  not  destroy  the  human  and  fallible  part  in  the  nature 
which  it  inspires;  and  that,  though  no  merely  human  being  ever  enjoyed  a 
larger  share  of  the  Spirit  of  God  than  i'aul,  yet  did  he  err  in  expecting,  and 
in  leading  the  Corinthians  and  Thcssalonians  to  expect,  the  end  of  the  world 
in  the  generation  then  existing. 

We  have  reason,  from  the  whole  tenor  of  Scrijjture,  to  believe  tbrt 
it  is  not  tlie  will  of  God  to  effect  any  end  by  a  miracle  wiiich  could  be 
as  well  ettected  by  the  estixbhshed  course  and  metliods  of  his  provi- 
dence. Hence  1  inler,  that  the  kind  or  degree  of  inspiiiition  woidd 
be  according  to  the  nature  of  the  object ;  revelation  and  the  highest 
suggestion,  where  they  were  necessary;  but,  where  they  were  not 
necessary,  thit  superintendence  and  direction  of  divine  power    ijion 


KEVELATION,   BUT  NOT  TUE  BIBLE,   INFALLIBLE.  193 

the  mind,  which  were  sufficient  for  the  jjurpose There  are 

many  passages  m  Scripture  to  which  an  original  inspiration  could  not 
be  attached. . . .  Li  Jeremiah,  Jonah,  and  llabakkuk,  inspired  prophets, 
we  find  occasionally  the  utterance  of  sinful  uifu'mity ;  such  as,  in  refer- 
ence to  llab.  i.  2,  3,  the  late  Mr.  MiLNKR  calls  a  "  blamable  mixture 
of  impatience  and  unbehel'."  {^Sermons,  ed.  by  Dean  M.  p.  277.)  .... 
The  three  friends  of  Job,  and  sometimes  Job  himself,  advance  many 
positions  wliich  are  not  true  in  prmciple,  nor  right  in  practice,  still  less 
uispired.  .  .  .  Will  any  considerate  person  say  that  Job's  mistaken 
friends  were  mspired,  when  God  himself  declared  to  them,  "  Ye  have 
not  spoken  concerning  me  what  is  right "  ?  or  that  the  holy  patiiaixh 
himself  was  inspired,  when  he  execrated  the  day  of  his  birth  ?  .  .  .  . 
In  relations  of  tact,  veracity  and  accuracy  are  aU  that  we  want.  What 
possessed  these  quaUties,  though  the  knowledge  of  it  might  be  derived 
from  any  of  the  common  sources  of  uilbrniation,  would  be  not  less 
true  than  that  which  was  infused  by  the  immediate  operation  of  the 
Holy  Spu-it.  —  Dk.  John  Pyk  Smith  :  Scripture  Testimony  to  the 
Messiah,  voL  i.  pp.  25,  27-9.  • 

In  pp.  22-3,  this  powerful  opponent  of  Unitarianism  proposes  the  follow- 
ing translation  of  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  "Every  writing  divinely  inspired  (is)  also 
protitable  for  instruction,"  &c.,  and  defends  it  by  the  authority  of  Calvln, 
Beza,  Diodati,  J.  D.  MicHAELis,  De  Wetxe,  and  Boothkoyd;  of  the 
oldest  versions,  and  also  of  the  Geneva  English  and  the  Dutch.  In  pp.  34-8, 
he  assigns  his  reasons  for  believing  that  the  Song  of  Solomon  was  not  a 
divinely  inspired  composition,  and  had  no  relation  to  any  of  the  facts  or 
doctrines  of  either  the  Israelitish  or  the  Christian  economy.  In  p.  59,  he 
very  properly  says,  that  "  that  which  is  evinced  to  be  true,  whatever  may 
be  the  channel  through  which  it  has  entered  our  minds,  we  are  bound  by 
our  relation  to  the  system  of  God's  moral  government  to  believe; "  and  that 
"  those  well-meaning  persons  who  think  that  they  have  proved  the  divine 
inspiration  of  a  particular  sentence  (such  as  1  Tim.  v.  23,  or  2  Tim.  iv.  13), 
because  their  pious  fertility  has  been  able  to  educe  a  great  number  of 
important  religious  reflections  from  the  advice,  the  request,  the  motives,  or 
the  implied  circumstances,  in  the  case,  are  committing  an  egregious  folly." 
In  p.  no,  he  admits  that  "in  the  Gospels  the  same  fact  or  discourse  is  often 
related  with  diU'erences,  which,  if  a  rigorous  verbal  conformity  were  insisted 
upon,  would  l)e  irreconcilable,  but  which  can  create  no  difliculty  if  only  the 
fair  sense  and  meaning  be  regarded."  And,  in  p.  62,  he  confesses,  "  that, 
after  long  and  serious  examination,  this  hypothesis  of  a  universal  verbal 
inspiration  does  appear"  to  him  "to  be  clogged  with  inimmerable  difficul- 
ties, and  to  be  by  no  means  required  by  the  facts  of  the  case  and  the  state- 
ments of  the  divine  word."  lu  support  of  his  opinion,  Dr.  Smith  quotes 
the  sentiments  advanced  by  many  eminent  divines. 

17 


194  REVELATION,   BOX   NOT   THE   BIBLE,    INFALLIBLE. 

Nor  again  is  there  any  reason  to  suppose  that  any  of  the  apostles 
was  in  such  a  sense  infallible  as  that  he  could  not  teach  fiilse  doctrine.- 
They  were,  indeed,  so  gijided  by  the  Spirit  as  to  have  the  truth  cle^irly 
revealed  to  them,  so  that  they  always  knew  it  themselves ;  but  it  does 
not  aj)])ear  that  tiiey  were  compelled  always  to  speak  the  truth.  Their 
infallibility  does  not  seem  to  have  been  lilvc  th;\t  which  Jlonian  Githo- 
lics  ascribe  to  their  popes,  whose  decisions  they  are  ready  to  follow, 
even  when  they  know  them  to  be  personally  the  woi'st  of  men,  and 
perhaps  infidels  in  their  hearts.  The  apostles  Peter  and  Barnabas,  for 
example,  were,  in  one  instuice,  induced  by  false  sliame  to  dissemble 
the  truth  which  hixd  been  revealed  to  them,  and,  by  the  weight  of  their 
example,  to  draw  others  also  into  the  same  iliult,  Gal.  ii.  11-13.  Paul, 
too,  expressly  tells  the  G-aktians,  that,  il'  he  himself  were  to  preach 
any  other  gospel  to  them  than  tbit  which  they  had  already  received, 
they  should  not  listen  to  him ;  so  that,  even  in  the  case  of  the  apostles, 
men  Avere  bound  to  exercise  their  o\ni  judgments,  and  not  required 
blindly  to  receive  every  thing  they  said;  but,  when  they  spoke  as 
witnesses,  to  consider  the  proofs  of  their  integrity ;  when  they  reasoned, 
to  examine  their  reasoning ;  when  they  pubUshed  revelations,  to  weigh 
well  the  miraculous  evidence  of  God's  speiiking  in  them,  —  ARCH- 
BISHOP Whately  :  CaiUions  for  the  Times,  \i]).  111-12. 

The  greater  part  of  what  the  apostles  WTote  was,  doubtless,  entu'ely 
the  suggestion  of  their  own  minds,  and,  properly  speaking,  uninspirwL 
ll-  authority  is  not  at  all  diminished  by  this  circumstance,  if  we  grant 
(wliat  it  would  be  absurd  to  doubt)  that  every  WTong  suggestion  must 
have  been  checked  by  the  impulse  of  the  Spirit,  every  deficiency 
supplied  by  actual  revelation,  and  every  failure  or  fault  of  memory 
miraculously  remedied.  The  revelation  was  miraculous;  but  it  was 
recorded  just  as  any  man  would  record  any  ordinary  information 
which  might  be  the  result  of  reasoning  or  of  report.  The  Bible  is  the 
only  book  in  the  world  wliich  ai)i)C;Us  to  God  for  its  authority,  without 

affecting  or  pretending  to  the  immediate  authorship  of  God 

The  true  notion  of  inspiration  is  not  that  the  sacred  penman  was 
inspired  while  in  the  act  of  writing,  but  that  he  wrote  what  he  hid 
beforehand  received  by  extraordinary  reveLition.  It  would  be  impos- 
sil)!e  else  to  account  for  the  variety  of  style  and  thought,  the  ocei^ional 
introduction  of  matter  foreign  to  revelation,  and  wluitcvor  else  Ix-lougs 
to  such  wTitings  in  connnon  with  all  mere  human  compositions.  — 
Dr.  Samukl  Hinds,  Bishop  of  Norwich:  History  of  Chrisli unity, 
pp.  bW,  281-0. 


REVELATION,  EOT  NOT   THE  BIBLE,  INFALLIBLE.  195 

Having  perused  with  great  attention  all  that  has  fallen  in  my  way 
from  Protestiint  Avi-iters  on  this  subject  [the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures], I  have  hardly  found  one  single  argument  advanced  by  them 
tlrnt  is  not  logically  uicorrect ;  so  that,  if  I  had  not  higher  gi-ounds  on 
which  to  rest  my  belief,  they  could  not  have  led  me  to  adopt  it.  .  .  . 
It  is  not  fair  to  consider  the  Sacred  Volume  ...  as  forming  an  indi- 
vidual whole.  Many  of  its  books  stand  necessarily  on  different  grounds 
from  the  rest.  For  instance,  learned  Protestant  divines,  especially  on 
the  continent,  have  excluded  from  inspiration  the  writmgs  of  St.  Luke 
and  St.  Mark,  for  this  reason,  that,  according  to  them,  the  only  argu- 
ment for  inspu-ation  in  the  Scriptures  is  the  promise  of  divine  assistance 
given  to  the  apostles.  But  these  were  not  apostles ;  they  were  not 
l^resent  at  the  promise ;  and,  if  you  extend  that  privilege  beyond  those 
who  were  present,  and  to  whom  the  promises  were  personally  addi'essed, 
the  rule  will  liave  no  farther  Umit.  K  you  admit  disciples  to  have 
partaken  of  the  privilege,  on  what  ground  is  Barnabas  excluded,  and 
why  is  not  his  Epistle  held  canonical  ?  .  .  .  Nowhere  does  our  SaAiom 
tell  his  apostles,  that  whatever  they  may  write  shall  enjoy  this  privilege 
[of  inspiration] ;  nor  do  they  anywhere  claim  it. . .  .What  internal  mark 
of  inspiration  can  we  discover  in  the  third  Epistle  of  St.  John  to  show, 
that  the  inspiration  sometimes  accorded  must  have  been  granted  here  ? 
Is  there  any  thing  in  that  Epistle  which  a  good  and  virtuous  pastor  of 
the  primitive  ages  might  not  have  written ;  any  tlung  superior  in  sen- 
timent or  doctrine  to  what  an  Ignatius  or  a  Polycarp  might  have 
indited  ?  It  is  unfair  in  the  extreme,  as  I  before  intimated,  to  consider 
the  New  Testament,  and  still  more  the  entire  Bible,  as  a  whole,  and 
use  internal  arguments  from  one  book  to  another ;  to  prove  that  the 
Song  of  Solomon  has  mternal  endence  of  inspu-ation,  because  Jere- 
miah, who  is  in  the  same  volume,  contains  true  prophecies ;  or  that 
tlie  Epistle  to  Philemon  is  necessarily  inspired,  because  the  Apocalypse, 
by  its  side,  is  a  revelation.  Yet  such  is  a  common  way  of  arguing.  If 
internal  evidence  has  to  decide  the  question,  show  it  me  for  each  book 
in  that  sacred  collection.  ...  As  such  conversions  [those  spoken  oi"  by 
the  Bev.  Mr.  Tottingham,  an  oi)])onent  of  the  Iloman  CathoHc  belief] 
do  not  prove  the  preacher's  sermon  to  be  inspired,  but  only  the  doc- 
trines which  he  teaches  to  be  good,  and,  if  you  please,  divine;  so 
neither  can  a  similar  fact  prove  the  Bible  insj)ired,  but  merely  its 
doctrines  to  be  holy  and  salutary.  The  "  Imitation  of  Chi-ist "  may 
be  thus  proved  to  be  an  inspired  work.  .  .  .  His  [Mr.  Tottingham's] 
secor.d  proof  is  the  prophecies  recorded   in  Scripture.     Thete  nmy, 


196  RETELATIOX,  BCT   NOT  THE  BIBLE,  INFALLIBLE. 

indeed,  prove  any  boolc  to  be  inspired  wlaich  is  composed  of  them, 
but  not,  surely,  any  wherein  they  are  merely  recorded.  .  .  .  Show  me 
where  St.  Matthew  or  St.  Mark  siys  that  they  have  WTitten  their 
boolvs  under  the  insjjiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  by  the  command 
of  God,  or  for  any  other  than  human  jjurjjoses.  Unless  you  cim  show 
this,  the  e^^dence  as  to  their  cluiractcr  may  prove  that  whatever  tliey 
wrote  is  true ;  but  it  will  never  prove  that  it  was  wTitten  under  the 
guicknce  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Precisely  of  a  similar  form  is  his  argu- 
ment di-a\ra  from  prophecy.  It  is  never  attempted  to  show  how  the 
projjhecies  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  were  intended  to  prove 
the  ins])irdtion  of  the  books  which  contain  them ;  how,  for  instance, 
the  truth  of  our  blessed  lledeemer's  prophecy  touching  the  desti'uction 
of  Jerusalem  can  demonstrate  that  the  Gospel  of  St,  Matthew  must 
be  inspired,  because  it  relates  it.  —  Cardinal  Wiseman  :  Lectures 
on  the  Doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church,  ])p.  3 1-6. 

I  .  .  .  shall  attempt  to  wrench  this  notion  of  a  verbal  inspiration 
from  the  hands  of  its  cham])ions  by  a  reductio  ad  ahsurdum,  ^■iz.,  by 
showing  the  monstrous  consecpiences  to  which  it  leads.  ...  Of  what 
use  is  it  to  a  German,  to  a  Swiss,  or  to  a  Scotsman,  that,  three  thou- 
sand years  before  the  Reformation,  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  was 
kept  from  erring  by  a  divine  restraint  over  his  words,  if  the  authors 
of  this  llcformition  —  Lutlier,  sup])ose,  Zwingle,  John  Knox  —  either 
m  iking  translations  themselves,  or  relying  upon  translations  made  by 
others  under  no  such  verl)al  restraint,  have  been  left  free  to  bias  his 
mind,  pretty  nearly  as  much  as  il'  the  original  Hebrew  writer  had  been 
resigned  to  his  own  human  discretion  P  . .  .  The  great  ideas  of  the 
Bible  j)rotect  themselves.  The  heavenly  tniths,  by  their  ovm  im- 
perishal)leness,  defeat  the  mortiility  of  languages  with  Avhich  for  a 
moment  they  are  associated.  Is  the  hglitning  cnfcel)led  or  chmmed, 
because  for  tliousands  of  years  it  has  blended  with  the  t;irnish  of  earth 
and  the  steams  of  earthly  graves  ?  Or  light,  which  so  long  has  tra- 
velled in  tlie  chambers  of  our  sickly  air,  and  searched  the  haunts  of 
impurity,  —  is  that  less  pure  than  it  was  in  the  first  chapter  of  Gene- 
sis ?  Or  that  more  holy  light  of  truth,  —  the  truth,  supjjose,  written 
from  his  creation  upon  the  t;iblets  of  man's  heart,  —  which  truth  never 
was  imprisoned  in  any  Hebrew  or  Greek,  but  has  ranged  for  ever 
through  courts  and  uunps,  deserts  and  cities,  the  original  lesson  of 
justice  to  man  and  j)iety  to  God,  —  has  that  become  tiiinted  by  inter- 
course with  flesh  ?  or  lias  it  become  hard  to  decipher,  because  the  very 
heart,  tliat  human  heart  where  it  is  inscribed,  is  so  often  blotted  with 


REVELATION,  BUT   NOT   TUE   BIBLE,  INFALLIBLE  197 

falsehoods  ? In  neutral  points,  having  no  relation  to  morals  or 

religious  jjhilosophy,  it  is  not  concealed  by  the  scriptural  records 
themselves,  tliat  even  uispii'ed  jjersons  made  grave  mistakes.  All 
the  apostles,  it  is  probable,  or  \vith  the  single  exception  of  St.  John, 
shared  in  the  mistake  about  the  second  coming  of  Chi'ist,  as  an  event 
izumediately  to  be  looked  for.  With  respect  to  diseases,  again,  it  is 
evident  that  the  apostles,  in  common  mth  all  Jews,  were  habitually 
disposed  to  read  m  them  distinct  manifestations  of  heavenly  wrath.  — 
Thomas  De  Quikcey:  Theological  Essays,  vol  i.  pp.  77-8,  80-1, 
87,  and  175. 

In  pp.  94-6,  Mr.  De  Quii«cey  shows  that  a  divine  teacher  or  a  sacred 
writer  could  not  avoid  the  use  of  phraseology  involving  scientific  errors, 
without  frustrating  the  objects  of  his  mission,  which  was  to  teach,  not 
science,  but  religion;  and  says  that  this  "  line  of  argument  applies  to  all  the 
compliances  of  Christ  with  the  Jewisli  prejudices  (partly  imported  from  the 
Euphrates)  as  to  demouology,  witchcraft,  &c." 

One  thing  is  clear  from  this,  and  many  other  like  passages,  viz., 
that  the  apostles  were  not  uniformly  and  always  giuded  in  all  their 
thoughts,  desu-es,  and  purposes,  by  an  infallible  Spirit  of  inspiration. 
Had  this  been  the  case,  how  could  Paul  have  often  pm-posed  that 
which  never  came  to  pass  ?  Those  who  plead  for  such  a  miiibrm  per- 
suasion may  seem  to  be  zealous  for  the  honor  of  the  apostles  and 
founders  of  Christianity ;  but  they  do  in  feet  cherish  a  mistaken  zeaL 
For  if  we  once  admit  that  the  apostles  were  uniformly  inspired  in  all 
which  they  purposed,  said,  or  did ;  then  we  are  constrained,  of  course, 
to  admit  that  men  acting  under  the  influence  of  inspiration  may  jjur- 
pose  that  which  will  never  come  to  pass  or  be  done ;  may  say  that 
which  is  hasty  or  incon-ect.  Acts  xxiii.  3,  or  do  that  which  the  gospel 
disapproves.  Gal.  ii.  13,  14.  But  if  this  be  once  fully  admitted,  then  it 
would  make  nothing  for  the  credit  due  to  any  man  to  affirm  that  he  is 
insj)ired ;  for  what  is  that  inspu-ation  to  be  accounted  of,  which,  even 
during  its  continuance,  does  not  guard  the  subject  of  it  from  mistake 
or  error  ?  Consequently,  those  who  maintain  the  uniform  inspirat  ion 
of  the  apostles,  and  yet  admit  (as  they  are  compelled  to  do)  their 
errors  in  purpose,  w'ord,  and  action,  do  in  effect  obscure  the  glory  of 
inspiration,  by  reducing  inspired  and  uninspiied  men  to  the  same  level. 
To  my  own  mind,  nothing  appeal's  more  certain  than  that  inspiration, 
in  any  respect  whatever,  was  not  abiding  and  uniform  with  the  apostles 
or  any  of  the  primitive  Christians.  To  God's  only  and  well-beloved 
Son,  and  to  him  onl)',  was  it  given  to  have  the  Spiiit  untTpu^  or  oi  t« 

17* 


198  RBVJiLATION,  BUT  NOT   THE   BIBLE,  INFALMBI.E. 

fiirpov  ["  not  by  measure  "],  John  iii.  34.  .  .  .  The  consequence  of  thia 
was,  that  Jesus  "  knew  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in  his  mouth ; " 
but  all  liis  followers,  whenever  they  were  left  without  the  special  and 
miraculous  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  committed  more  or  less  of  sin  and 
error.  This  view  of  the  subject  frees  it  from  many  and  most  formid- 
able difiicul'ies.  It  assigns  to  the  Saviour  the  jjre-eminence  wliich  is 
justly  due.  It  accounts  for  the  mistiikes  and  errors  of  his  ajjostlcs. 
At  the  same  time,  it  does  not  detract,  in  the  least  degree,  from  the 
certainty  and  \'alidity  of  the  sayings  and  doings  of  the  apastles,  when 
they  were  under  the  special  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  —  MosES 
Stuart  on  Rom.  i.  13 ;  in  Comtnentary  on  the  Epistle  to  tJic  Romans, 
pp.  55-6. 

We  cannot  admit  the  force  of  the  reasoning  [of  M.  Gaussen,  of 
the  Oratoire]  that  would  exalt  all  the  writings  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  to  prophetic  dignity ;  .  .  .  and  still  less  can  we  sjmpathize 
with  the  rigid  uniformity  with  which  he  carries  out,  in  little  harmony 
as  it  seems  to  us  with  his  ovm  views  of  individiuxlity,  the  theory  of 
aft  initio  dictation  in  the  case  of  every  sacred  writer  without  excep- 
tion. —  JVorlh  British  Review  for  JVbvember,  1852 ;  Amer.  edition, 
voL  xiii.  pp.  99,  100. 

The  author  of  the  article  from  which  we  make  this  extract  opposes  both 
that  view  of  inspiration  which  would  resolve  it,  with  the  naturalistic  school, 
into  elevated  genius;  and  the  older  opinion  of  some  supernatunilists,  which 
would  make  all  the  writers  of  the  Bible,  not  only  in  their  ideas  but  in  tiiuir 
style,  mere  amanuenses  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Contrary  also  to  Sciileiekma- 
CHEU,  CoLKiiiDGE,  Neandek,  and  TnoLUCK,  who,  in  common  with  a  great 
majority  of  Unitarians,  believe  in  a  partial  ins|)iration  of  the  Sacred  Writ- 
ings, lie  regards  all  these  as  being  plenarily  inspired  or  infallible,  though  he 
candidly  admits  (p.  97)  that  "a  discordant  aspect"  has  been  given  "to 
some  parts  of  tlie  Scripture  "  from  "  the  neglect  of  chronological  details,  and 
many  other  circumstances; "  "  leaving  the  believer  in  plenary  inspiration  in 
doubt  and  perplexity." 

The  dilKculties  [which  the  Bible  offers]  never  will  be  all  resolved ; 

and,  even  if  they  were  so,  they  would  but  give  place  to  fresh  ones 

When  we  look  closely  into  this  matter,  we  shall  find  .  .  .  tluit  the  jier- 
Bonal  feeling  of  the  \vi-iters  [of  the  Old  and  New  TesUrmcnt  c;uions]  is 
the  same ;  that  their  individuality  has  the  same  scope,  and  produces  the 
same  effects ;  that  the  influence  of  circumstances  on  their  WTitings  is 
the  same ;  and  that  all  —  various  readings,  incorrect  transLitions,  the 
use  of  various  sources  of  information,  d()cument;iry  and  otherwise, 
Varieties  of  st}k',  faults  ui  grammar,  trifling  details,  confessions  of 


REVKLATION,  BUT  NOT   THE   BIBLE,  INFALLIBLE.  199 

weakness,  ignorance,  and  sin,  apparent  contradictions  and  errors,  loss 
of  the  authors'  names,  absence  of  any  formal  sanction  to  the  canon,  — 
all,  in  short,  which  we  meet  with  in  the  case  of  the  one  canon  is  to  be 

found  also  in  that  of  the  other With  the  exception  of  those 

cases  in  which  they  transmit  to  us  some  matter  of  direct  revelation, . . . 
the  prophets  and  apostles  alike  write  under  the  impidse  of  their  ovra 
jjecuHar  feelings.  The  prophets  who  wrote  the  history  of  the  kings 
of  Judah  and  Israel  had  no  more  thought  of  producing  oi'acles  of  God 
than  had  Mark  or  Luke  in  writing  the  liistory  of  Jesus  Christ.  —  Count 
Agenor  Gasparin  :  The  Schools  of  Doubt  and  the  School  of  Faith, 
pp.  212,  287-8,  297. 

Let  not  the  reader,  if  unacquainted  with  the  aim  of  Count  Gasparin, 
suppose,  from  the  extracts  we  have  made  from  him,  that  he  founds  his  belief 
in  revelation  on  the  trustworthiness  of  the  writers  of  the  Bible,  or  on  the 
divinity  of  the  principles  which  they  inculcate  or  record.  The  object  of  his 
work,  on  the  contrary,  is  to  establish  the  dogma  of  the  plenary  inspiration 
of  all  parts  of  Scripture;  the  absolute  infallibility  of  all  the  books  admitted 
into  the  Protestant  canon;  the  perfect  equality  of  a  canonical  book  of  ]\Ioses, 
of  David,  of  Solomon,  or  of  an  apostle,  to  the  words  even  of  Jesus  Christ 
himself  (pp.  194,  198).  But  if  there  be  in  the  Bible  so  much  of  difficultj', 
error,  weakness,' apparent  contradiction,  &c.,  as  he  represents,  —  whatever 
may  be  the  causes  from  which  this  originates,  —  we  may  be  permitted  to 
ask  what  conceivable  value  to  faith  is  attributed  in  the  theory  of  inspiration 
and  infallibility  for  which  he  so  eloquently  contends. 

§  2.  The  Denial  of  Verbal  or  of  Plenary  iNsriKATioN  not  a 
Denial  of  Revelation. 

It  is  not  of  necessity  to  salvation  to  believe  every  book  or  verse  in 
Scripture  to  be  canonical,  or  wiitten  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  For  as 
the  Papists'  canon  is  larger  than  that  which  the  f  rotestants  own ;  so, 
if  our  canon  should  prove  defective  of  any  one  book,  it  would  not 
follow  that  we  could  not  be  saved  for  WTant  of  a  sufficient  faith.  The 
chm-ches  immediately  after  the  apostles'  time  had  not  each  one  all 
their  \mtings ;  but  they  were  brought  together  in  tune,  and  received 
by  degrees,  as  they  had  proof  of  then-  being  -vvTitten  by  authorized, 
inspired  persons.  ...  A  man  may  be  saved  ■who  believeth  not  some 
books  of  Scripture  (as  Judc,  2  Peter,  2  John,  3  Jolm,  Revelations)  to 
be  canonical,  or  the  word  of  God ;  so  he  heartily  believe  the  rest,  or  the 

essentLils Though  all  Sci'ipture  be  of  divine  authority,  yet  he 

that  beheveth  but  some  one  book  which  contiinetli  the  substance  of 
the  doctrine  of  sidvation  may  be  s;ivcd ;  much  more  tliey  that  haAe 


200  DEXIAL  OF   THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   TIIE  BIBLE 

doubted  but  of  some  particuLir  books.  They  tkit  take  the  Scripture 
to  be  but  the  \\Titings  of  godly,  honest  men,  and  so  to  be  only  a 
means  of  milking  kno\\-n  Clirist,  ha\ing  a  graduiU  precedency  to  the 
writings  of  other  godly  men,  and  do  believe  in  Chi-ist  uj)on  those 
strong  grounds  which  are  drawn  ti-om  his  doctrine,  mirdcles,  &c., 
rather  than  upon  the  testimony  of  the  writing,  as  beuig  jjurely  infal- 
lible and  divine,  may  yet  have  a  di\ine  and  s;iving  tliith.  Much  more 
those  that  believe  the  whole  writuig  to  be  of  dinne  inspiration  where 
it  handleth  the  substance,  but  doubt  wliether  God  iniallibly  guide 
them  in  every  cuxumstance.  —  KlCllARD  B.VXTER :  Christian  Direc- 
tory, and  The  Saint's  Rest ;  in  Practical  Works,  voL  v.  pp.  523,  561 ; 
and  vol.  xxii.  p,  264. 

Since  the  Jews  had,  at  the  time  of  the  writmg  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, a  peculiar  way  of  expounding  many  prophecies  and  passages  in 
the  Old  Testiiment,  it  was  a  very  proper  way  to  con\-ince  them,  to 
allege  many  places  according  to  their  key  and  methods  of  exposition. 
Therefore,  when  divine  writers  argue  upon  any  point,  we  are  always 
bound  to  believe  the  conclusions  that  their  reasonings  end  in,  as  parts 
of  divine  revekition ;  but  we  are  not  bomid  to  be  able  to  make  out,  or 
even  to  assent  to,  all  the  premises  made  use  of  by  tliem  in  their  whole 
extent,  mdess  it  appciu's  plainly  tliat  they  affirm  the  premises  as 
expressly  as  they  do  the  conclusions  proved  by  them.  —  Bisiiop 
Burnet  :  Exposition  of  the  l^hirty-nine  Jlrticles,  Art,  6,  pp.  112-13. 

If  the  four  evangelists  were  not  rendered  infallible  by  tlie  imme- 
diate intervention  of  the  Deity,  it  is  hardly  possible  that  their  accounts 
should  be  wholly  free  from  error,  and  therefore  in  no  case  contradic- 
tory to  each  other.  But  even  if  it  be  ti'ue  that  their  accounts  are 
sometimes  at  variance,  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  tlie  history  itself, 
the  miracles  and  the  resuiTCCtion  of  Christ,  are  a  forgery;  and  the 
only  inference  which  we  can  deduce  from  it,  is  that  the  evangelists 
were  not  inspired,  at  least  not  in  the  reLition  of  historical  tacts.  .  .  . 
To  speak  the  truth,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  evangelists  were  divinely 
insj)ircd  in  matters  of  history.  —  J.  1).  illcllAELls:  Introduction  to 
the  Mw  Testament,  vol.  iii.  part  i.  j)]).  26-7. 

lie  who  acquires  knowledge,  not  by  the  use  of  any  natural  facult)-, 
neither  by  immediate  percei)ti()n,  nor  by  reasomng,  nor  l)y  instruction, 
but  in  some  inexpliaible,  miraculous  manner,  is  insj)ired.  He  who 
sets  down  in  writing  the  knowledge  so  obtiined  composes  an  inspired 
work.  There  appears  to  be  no  intelligible  distuiction  between  original 
revelation  and  mspiration ;   and  yet  men  seem  to  have  eutertiiuied 


NOT  A  DENIAL  OF  REVELATION.  201 

an  obscure  notion  of  something  more :  other^^ise  they  could  not  have 
been  per})lexed  with  so  many  difficulties  concerning  the  accui-acy  and 
perfection  of  the  Scriptures.  They  contain  some  few  passages  which 
appear  to  have  no  relation  to  religion,  and  many  facts  wliich  the  writers 
certvinly  knew  in  the  ordinary  way.  Nor  does  there  seem  any  reason 
to  expect  marks  of  the  interposition  of  Heaven  in  such  matters.  The 
great  truths  impressed  on  their  minds  neither  obliterated  their  former 
knowledge,  nor  made  it  perfect.  When  they  speak,  for  instance,  of  a 
Roman  custom  or  a  Jewish  tradition,  we  are  not  to  imagine  that  these 
things  were  revealed  from  above,  nor  to  require  greater  accuracy  in 
their  accomits  of  them  than  in  other  writers  who  treat  of  the  afFaks 
of  then-  own  age  and  their  own  country.  When  they  relate  the  won- 
derfid  events  which  they  had  seen  and  heard,  it  wiU  be  no  objection 
to  their  credit  as  human  witnesses,  that  we  find  in  their  several  histo- 
ries of  the  same  fact  such  a  variety  of  cii'cumstances  or  of  method  as 
ahvays  occurs  in  other  the  most  exact  narrations.  Difficulties  of  this 
kind  could  never  have  arisen,  or  must  have  been  easily  removed,  had 
either  the  impugners  or  defenders  of  the  Sacred  Writings  formed 
precise  ideas  of  the  natm-e  of  mspiration,  and  attended  to  its  use. 
This  was  not  to  teach  men  liistory  or  philosophy ;  not  to  instruct  them 
in  the  arts  of  composition,  or  the  ornaments  of  human  learrung ;  but 
to  make  them  understand  and  beheve  the  reUgion  of  Jesus.  —  Dr. 
William  Samuel  Powell:  Discourses,  No,  11.  jjp.  41-2. 

The  views  of  inspiration  so  clearly  presented  by  Dr.  Powkll  seem  in 
the  main  to  be  those  generally  adopted  by  Unitarians.  Li  his  fifteenth  Dis- 
course, he  enters  more  at  large  on  the  subject,  particularly  iu  its  bearing  on 
the  Epistles  of  Paul ;  —  shows  that  the  great  apostle  had  received  the  doc- 
trines of  Christianity  from  Christ  himself,  but  that  his  natural  faculties  and 
his  education  enabled  him  to  retain  the  knowledge  he  had  acquired,  and  to 
impart  it  to  others  in  a  style  forcible,  but  "  abounding  with  broken  sentences, 
bold  figures,  and  hard,  far-fetched  metaphors;"  —  observes,  that,  though 
it  were  possible  to  prove  the  Scriptures  to  have  been  dictated  verbally  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  "  it  does  not  appear  that  any  important  conclusions  would  be 
deducible  from  it; "  and  closes  the  discussion  with  a  remark,  the  justness 
of  wliich  will,  we  think,  be  admitted  by  all  true  Protestants,  —  that  "  that 
which  "  in  the  Scriptures  "  is  important  is  also  clear;  "  and  "  that,  whatever 
maj'  be  thought  of  the  coloring,  the  substance  of  these  writings  was  from 
heaven." 

If  we  once  admit  the  falUbihty  of  the  apostolic  judgment,  where 
are  we  to  stop,  or  in  what  can  we  rely  upon  it  ?  To  which  question, 
...  as  ai-guing  for  the  substantial  truth  of  the  Christian  liistorv,  and 


202  DKXTAL   OF   THE   INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE    BIBLE 

for  that  alone,  it  is  competent  to  the  advoaite  of  Christianity  to  rejily, 
"  Give  me  the  apostles'  testimony,  and  I  do  not  stand  in  need  of  their 
judgment ;  give  me  the  focts,  and  I  have  complete  security  for  every 
conclusion  I  want."  .  .  .  The  two  following  Cixutions . . .  will  exclude  all 
uncertiiinty  upon  this  head  which  am  be  attended  with  danger  :  First, 
To  separate  what  was  the  object  of  the  apostohc  mission,  and  decLxred 
by  them  to  be  so,  from  what  was  extraneous  to  it,  or  onl}-  incidcntiilly 
connected  with  it.  .  .  .  Secondly,  That,  in  readhig  the  apostolic  writings, 
we  distinguish  between  their  doctrines  and  their  arguments.  Tlieir 
doctrines  came  to  them  by  reveliition  properly  so  allied ;  yet,  m  pro- 
pouncUng  these  doctrines  in  their  WTitings  or  discom'ses,  they  were 
wont  to  illustrate,  support,  and  enlbrce  them  by  such  analogies,  argu- 
ments, and  considerations,  as  their  own  thoughts  suggested.  .  .  .  The 
doctrine  itself  must  be  received ;  but  it  is  not  necessary,  in  order  to 
defend  Christianity,  to  defend  the  propriety  of  every  comparison,  or 
the  vaHdity  of  every  argument,  which  the  apostle  has  brought  into  the 
discussion,  —  Dr.  Wm.  Palky  :  Evidences  of  Christianiti/,  part  iiu 
chap.  2;  in  Works,  pp.  412-13. 

We  have  omitted  the  illustrations  by  which  this  clear-heaJed  thinker 
supports  his  reasoning,  drawn  from  the  belief  of  tlie  evangelists  in  the 
reality  of  demoniacal  possession,  and  from  the  erroneous  opinion  attributed 
to  the  apostles,  and  supposed  to  be  found  in  their  writings,  that  the  day  ot 
judgment  was  to  approach  in  their  own  times.  But,  as  Paley's  work  is 
well  known,  the  whole  chapter  can  easily  be  referred  to. 

The  history  of  the  New  Testament  remains  in  the  main  true, 
although  the  narrator  may  deviate  from  what  actually  took  place,  in 
descriljing  immaterial  collateral  circumst;uices,  or  may,  through  mis- 
take, alter  or  add  something  in  such. collateral  incidents;  and  altliough 
he  mav  adopt  words  somewhat  var}ing  from  those  actiuilly  used  l)y 
the  characters  occurring  in  the  history.  It  is  sufficient  if  only  the 
feicts  themselves  are  not  fabricated,  the  tlioughts  and  sentiments  of 
the  actors  and  speakers  not  perverted,  and  the  truths  which  they 
])ropound  not  mixed  with  falsehood.  In  this  sense  we  maintam  thit 
the  liistory  cont;xined  in  the  New  Tcst;xment  is  true.     The  matcrLil 

focts  are  not  affected The  truth  of  an  event  in  general  depends 

not  upon  single  words,  nor  on  trivial  tcmj)orary  limit;itions  and  colla- 
teral incidents ;  but  the  question  is,  whether  the  fact  be  true.  Each 
narrator  has  recorded  it  somewhat  differently  according  to  his  o^vn 
observation,  and  the  different  way  by  which  he  arrived  at  the  know- 
Ic'ilge  iM  it.     This  very  variety  confirms  the  truth  of  the  evangelic 


NOT  A  DENIAL  OF  REVELATION.  203 

history.  A  suspicion  would  naturally  arise  against  them,  if  each  of 
the  erangclists  had  narrated  every  tiling  to  the  minutest  circumstance 
in  the  very  same  words.  —  G.  F.  Seiler:  Biblical  Herinenexdica, 
§§  298,  326. 

It  is  my  profound  comiction  that  St.  John  and  St.  Paul  were 
divinely  inspired;  but  I  totally  disbelieve  the  dictation  of  any  one 
word,  sentence,  or  argument,  throughout  their  writings.  Observe, 
there  was  revelation.  .  .  .  Revelations  of  facts  were  undoul:)tedly  made 
to  the  prophets ;  revelations  of  doctrines  were  as  undoubtedly  made  to 
John  and  Paul ;  —  but  is  it  not  a  mere  matter  of  our  very  senses 
that  John  and  Paul  each  dealt  with  those  revelations,  expounded 
them,  insisted  on  them,  just  exactly  according  to  liis  o^vTl  natural 
strength  of  intellect,  habit  of  reasoning,  moral  and  even  physical  tem- 
perament ?  We  receive  the  books  ascribed  to  John  and  Paul  as  their 
books  on  the  judgment  of  men  for  whom  no  miraculous  judgment  is 
pretended ;  nay,  whom,  m  their  admission  and  rejection  of  other 
books,  we  believe  to  have  erred.  Shall  we  give  less  credence  to  John 
and  Paul  themselves  ?  Siu-ely  the  heart  and  soul  of  every  Christian 
give  him  sufficient  assvu-ance,  that,  in  all  things  that  concern  him  aa 
a  man,  the  words  that  he  reads  are  spirit  and  truth,  and  could  only 
proceed  from  Ilim  wlio  made  both  heart  and  souL  Understand  the 
matter  so,  and  all  difficulty  vanishes :  you  read  without  fear,  lest  your 
fiiith  meet  M-ith  some  shock  from  a  passage  here  and  there  which  you 
cannot  reconcile  \nth  immediate  dictation  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God, 
without  an  absm-d  violence  offered  to  the  text.  You  read  the  Bible  as 
the  best  of  all  books,  but  still  as  a  book,  and  make  use  of  all  the 
means  and  a]jpUances  wliich  learning  and  skill,  imder  the  blessing  of 
God,  can  afford  towards  rightly  apprehending  the  general  sense  of  it ; 
not  sohcitous  to  find  out  doctrine  in  mere  epistolary  familiarity,  or  facts 
in  clear  ad  hominem  et  pro  tempore  allusions  to  national  traditions.  — 
S.  T.  Coleridge  :  Table  Talk ;  in  Works,  vol.  vi.  pp.  386-7. 

The  same  laws  of  criticism  which  teach  us  to  distinguish  between 
various  degrees  of  testimony,  authorize  us  to  assign  the  very  highest 
rank  to  the  evidences  of  the  writings  of  St.  John  and  St.  Paul  If 
belief  is  to  be  given  to  any  human  compositions,  it  is  due  to  these ;  yet, 
if  we  believe  these  mereh'  as  human  compositions,  and  without  assum- 
ing any  thing  as  to  then-  divine  inspii-ation,  om-  Christian  faith,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  is  reasonable ;  not  merely  the  facts  of  our  Lord's  miracles 
and  resurrection,  but  Chiistian  faith  in  all  its  fixhiess,  the  whole  dis- 
pensation of  the  Spirit,  the  revelation  of  the  redemption  of  man  and 


204  DENIAL  OF   THE  INFALLIBILITY  OF  THE   BIBLE 

of  the  Di\'ine  Persons  who  are  its  authors,  of  all  thiit  Christian  faith 
and  hope  and  love  ain  need.  And  tliis  is  so  true,  that  even  ^^^thout 
reckoning  the  Epistle  to  the  Iiet)rews  amongst  St.  Paul's  writings  j 
nay,  even  if  we  choose  to  reject  the  three  jxistoral  Epistles ;  yet,  taking 
only  what  neither  has  been  nor  can  be  doubted,  —  the  Epistles  to  the 
Komans,  Corinthiiins,  Gralatians,  Ephcsuins,  PhiUppians,  Colossians,  and 
Thessalonians,  —  we  have  in  these,  together  with  St.  John's  Gospel 
and  First  Epistle,  —  giving  up,  if  we  choose,  the  other  two,  —  a 
ground  on  which  our  laitli  may  st;ind  for  ever,  according  to  the  strict- 
est rules  of  the  undersUmding,  according  to  the  clearest  intuitions  of 
reason.  —  Dr.  Thomas  Arnold:  Miscellaneous  Works,  pp.  280-1. 

It  may  be  fiiirly  questioned,  first,  whether  even  its  sacred  history 
is  inspired.  For  although,  wherever  a  point  of  faith  or  practice  is 
involved  in  the  historic;il  record,  insjjii-ation  must  be  supposed  (else 
tlie  application  of  the  i-ecord  as  an  intallible  rule  must  be  abandoned), 
yet,  where  this  is  not  the  case,  there  seems  to  be  no  necessity  for 
supposing  mspii-ation ;  and,  by  not  supposing  it,  several  difficulties  in 
the  attempt  to  harmonize  the  sacred  historians  are  removed.  Again, 
proceeding  still  on  the  princij)le  that  the  truths  to  be  believed,  the 
matcruil  of  faith,  is  the  j)oint  to  which  the  control  or  suggestions  of 
inspiration  must  liave  been  directed,  and  to  which  alone  it  is  necessary 
for  constituting  the  Bible  the  rule  of  faith,  that  it  should  be  dii-ected,  — 
the  reasoning  of  the  uispired  writers  may  be  considered  Siifely  as  their 
own.  I  do  not  mean  to  impugn  the  reasoning  of  any  one  passiige  in 
the  apostolical  writings ;  but,  were  any  found  opsn  to  it,  the  circum- 
stance would  not,  according  to  this  \-iew,  attect  the  insj)ircd  character 
and  authority  of  the  work.  —  Bishop  Hinds  :  History  of  Christianitij, 
pp.  523-4  ;  Appendix,  Note  L 

It  seems  to  me  tlir  safer,  more  scrijjtural,  more  godly,  to  suppose 
they  [the  writers  of  the  Bil>leJ  did  take  pains,  and  that  t!ie  Spirit 
fcvught  them  to  tike  pains,  in  sifting  facts,  than  to  suppose  that  they 
were  merely  told  the  facts.  I  most  assuredly  could  not  give  up  the 
faith  in  God  which  they  have  cherished  in  me,  il'  I  found  they  had 
made  mistikes ;  and  I  have  too  much  respect  and  honor  for  those  who 
use  the  strongest  expressions  about  tlie  certiinty  of  every  word  in  tlie 
Scriptures,  to  sujjpose  that  tlieij  would.  ...  If  any  one  lilvcs  to  spo;ik 
of  plenary  inspiration,  I  would  not  complain ;  I  ol)ject  to  the  insjjij'a- 
\ion  which  people  talk  of,  for  being  too  empty,  —  not  for  being  too 
full  These  forms  of  speech  ...  are  not  for  those  who  are  struggling 
with  life  and  death  :  sucli  persons  want,  not  a  jjleiury  inspiration  or  a 


NOT   A   DENIAL   OF   REVELATION.  205 

verbal  insijiration,  but  a  book  of  life ;  and  they  will  know  that  they 
have  such  a  book  when  you  have  courage  to  tell  them  tkvt  there  is  a 
Spirit  with  them  who  will  guide  them  into  the  truth  of  it.  —  F.  D. 
Maurice  :  Theological  Essays,  pp.  260-1. 

To  say  [as  is  said  by  Comit  Gaspaiin]  that  authority  must  cease 
with  the  slightest  admixtui'e  of  eiTor,  is  surely  opposed  to  common 
sense  and  all  experience.  .  .  .  We  might  as  well  say,  that  testimony 
ceases  to  be  testimony,  as  that  authority  ceases  to  be  authority,  as 
soon  as  there  is  the  least  admixture  of  what  is  doubtful  or  untrue. 
Applied  to  the  case  before  us,  the  inaccm-acy  of  the  assertion  is  equally 
plam.  Were  the  Scriptures  no  authority  to  those  early  Christians 
who  doubted  the  canonicity  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  James  and  Jude;  or 
to  Luther,  when  he  spoke  of  tossing  the  Book  of  Esther  into  the 
Elbe ;  or  to  Pye  Smith,  when  he  disowned  the  Song  of  Solomon  ? 
Is  a  man's  Clmstian  taith  at  an  end,  and  his  submission  to  the  word 
of  God  destroyed,  the  moment  he  rejects  the  Last  verses  of  St.  Mark, 
or  stands  in  doubt  whether  to  receive  or  reject  the  verse  of  the  three 
heavenly  witnesses  ?  Such  rash  statements  are  equally  rash  and  mis- 
chievous. They  bind  heavy  burdens  upon  the  weak  faith  of  inflints  in 
the  family  of  Christ,  wliich  crush  them  into  blind  creduhty,  if  passively 
accepted ;  or  repel  them  into  dangerous  incredulity,  if  hastily  flung 
away.  There  are  several  books  and  many  verses  of  the  Bilile,  in  which 
it  has  not  pleased  God  that  the  evidence  of  canonicity  should  be  as  clear 
as  tliat  wliich  attests  the  main  facts  and  fundamental  doctrines  of  the 
gospel.  A  faith  in  the  plenary  inspii-ation  of  such  portions  can  never 
rank  among  the  vitids  of  Christianity.  Men  ought  to  ask  themselves 
whether  they  are  not  tampering  with  their  conscience  or  their  reason, 
before  they  c;in  look  on  it  in  this  Hght,  and  persuade  themselves  into 

a  conclusion  which  is  ob\aously  ill-founded  and  mischievous If  a 

perfect  code,  exempt  from  the  slightest  measure  of  error,  or  the  least 
haze  upon  the  horizon,  were  essential  to  the  nature  of  a  divine  revela- 
tion, we  should  be  compelled  to  contradict  the  plainest  fixcts,  and  assert 
the  infallibility  of  every  version  of  the  Bible,  and  every  cojjy  of  every 
version.  Those  who  read  it  in  tliis  form  are  millions  to  one,  compared 
with  those  who  could  have  access  to  the  original  autographs.  In  the 
case  of  the  whole  Bible,  it  is  cerUxin  that  no  one  person  can  ever  have 
enjoyed  this  privilege.  The  degree  of  error,  then,  which  is  disclosed 
by  various  readings  and  imperfect  versions,  is  plainly  quite  consistent 
with  the  great  pi-actical  object  of  a  message  from  God  to  man.  There 
can  thus  be  no  a  priori  reason  why  the  same  degree  of  error  in  the 

18 


20 G  TILE   DOGMA   OF  THE   BIBLE'S   INFALLIBILITY 

autographs  themselves  might  not  be  consistent  wth  the  purpose  and 

character  of  a  dinne  mess;ige The  maxim  [tluit  tlie  infuIlibiUty 

or  inspmition  of  tlie  Scriptures  admits  of  no  degrees,  us  asserted  by 
*  Comit  Gasparin]  does  equal  violence  to  the  instincts  of  every  Chris- 
tian, confirmed  by  the  diily  experience  of  the  church  of  God.  The 
New  Testament  is  felt  to  be  more  precious  than  the  Old ;  the  Psalms 
and  Isaiah,  tlian  the  Minor  Prophets,  or  tlie  appendices  of  the  sacred 
history.  What  Chi'lstian,  unless  mider  some  strange  bLus,  ci\n  read 
Ezra  ii.  45—54  and  John  iii.  16  in  succession,  and  seriously  affii'm  tiiat 
they  are  of  equal  dignity  and  spuituid  excellence  ?  .  .  .  Truths  ecjually 
true  are  not  all  of  equal  importance,  and  may  ditfer  widely,  both  in 
the  ulness  of  spiritual  wisdom  from  which  they  emaimte,  and  their 
tendency  to  maintain  the  spiritual  life  of  the  chm'ch  of  God.  —  Chris- 
tian Observer  for  March,  1855;  pp.  180-1,  183,  189-90. 


§  3.  The  Dogma  of  the  In  fallibility  of  all  Parts  of  thk  Biblb 
Injurious  to  the  Intekests  of  Chkistianity. 

All  these  eiT  in  overdoing  [that  is,  all  eiT  who  assert  that  Scripture 
excludes  as  useless  the  whole  Lvw  and  light  of  natui-e ;  that  it  Ls  so 
divine,  not  only  in  matter,  but  in  method  and  style,  as  to  exhibit  no 
human  imjierfection  or  weakness ;  that  every  pass;ige  m  the  Bible  is 
equally  obhgatory  on  men  of  uU  pLices  and  ages ;  that  the  whole  of  it 
forms  so  perfect  a  rule  of  faith,  that  notlung  which  comes  in  any  other 
way  is  to  be  biken  for  certain ;  tliat,  in  order  to  be  saved,  we  must 
hold  the  cimonicaluess  of  every  book  and  text  of  Scri])ture ;  and  that 
there  are  no  various  readings  or  doubtful  texts,  no  corrujjtion  in  WTit- 
ten  or  printed  copies].  .  .  .  Tlie  dangers  of  overdoing  liere  are  these : 
1.  It  leadeth  to  dowm-ight  infidelity;  for,  when  men  find  that  the 
Scripture  is  imperfect  or  wanting  in  that  wliich  they  limey  to  be  part 
of  its  perfection,  and  to  be  really  insufficient, .  .  .  they  will  be  apt  to 
say,  "  It  is  not  of  God,  because  it  hath  not  that  which  it  pretends 
to  have."  2.  God  is  made  the  autlior  of  defects  and  imperfections. 
3.  The  Scrij)ture  is  exposed  to  the  scorn  and  C()iifut;ition  of  infidels,  — 
IllcnARU  B.vXTKU :  Christian  Directory ;  in  Practical  horks,  voL  v. 
pp.  502-5. 

Tlje  most  dangerous  objections  which  axn  be  made  to  the  ti'uth  of 
our  religion,  and  such  as  are  most  difficult  to  answer,  are  those  drawn 
I'ro'n  the  diliorent  relations  of  the  four  evangehsts.     The  "  Fragments  " 


INJURIOUS  TO  CHRISTIANITY.  207 

published  by  L-issing  insist  chiefly  on  tliis  objection ;  but  the  whole 
vanishes  into  nothing,  unless  we  ourselves  give  it  that  iniportimce 
which  it  has  not  in  itself,  by  assuming  an  unnecessary  hypothesis.  — 
J.  D.  MiCH.\ELis :  Introd.  to  JVew  Testament,  vol.  i.  pp.  75-6. 

No  intelhgent  Christian  wiU  distinguish  it  by  that  name  [will  dis- 
tinguish the  Bible  by  calhng  it  the  "  word  of  God  "],  Avithout  a  large 
restriction  of  its  contents.  All  we  assert  respecting  it  is,  that  it  is  a 
collection  of  WTitings,  containing  a  history  of  the  di\ine  dispensations 
to  our  world,  and  that  the  proper  word  of  God,  with  numberless  other 
particulars,  is  mterwoven  all  the  way  through  these  most  ancient  and 
invaluable  writings.  —  David  Sbipson  :  Plea  for  Religion,  p.  222. 

Had  the  distinction  which  Mr.  Simpson,  in  common  with  the  generality 
of  Unitarians,  malies  between  tlie  word  of  God  and  the  books  contaiiung  it, 
been  attended  to  by  Christian  divines  in  general,  instead  of  tlieir  confound- 
ing terms  of  a  widely  diflerent  meaning,  many  of  the  objections  urged  by 
unbelievers  would  have  lost  their  force;  and  neither  the  curses  of  a  Hebrew 
bard,  the  mistakes  of  an  evangelist,  nor  the  inconsequential  reasonings  of  an 
apostle,  would  have  been  regarded  as  at  all  affecting  the  credibility  of  a 
revelation  from  God. 

They  who  read  it  [the  Sacred  Vohmie]  with  "an  evil  heart  of 
unbelief"  and  an  ahen  spirit,  —  what  boots  for  them  the  assertion  that 
every  sentence  was  nihacidously  comraiuiicated  to  the  nominal  author 
by  God  himseh?  Will  it  not  rather  present  additional  tempbxtions  to 
the  unhappy  scoffers,  and  furnish  them  with  a  pretext  of  sell-justifica- 

tiou  ? I  am  told  that  this  doctrine  must  not  be  resisted  or 

called  in  question,  because  of  its  fitness  to  preserve  unity  of  faith,  and 
for  the  prevention  of  schism  and  sectarian  byways !  Let  the  man  who 
holds  this  language  trace  the  historj-  of  Protestantism,  and  the  growth 
of  sectaruxn  di\isions,  ending  with  Dr.  Hawker's  ultra-CaMnistic  Tracts, 
and  Mr.  Belsham's  New  Version  of  the  Testament.  And  then  let 
him  tell  me,  that,  for  the  prevention  of  an  evil  which  already  exists, 
and  which  the  boasted  preventive  itself  might  rather  seem  to  have 
occasioned,  I  must  submit  to  be  silenced  by  the  fii-st  learned  infide' 
who  throws  in  my  face  the  blessings  of  Deborah,  or  the  cursings  of 
David,  or  the  Grecisms  and  heavier  difficulties  in  the  biograjjhical 
chajjters  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  or  the  hydrogra])hy  and  natural  jjhilo- 
sophy  of  the  patriarchal  ages,  —  I  must  forego  the  means  of  silencing, 
and  the  prospect  of  convincing,  an  ahenated  brother,  because  I  must 
not  thus  answer :  "  My  brother,  what  has  aU  this  to  do  with  the  truth 
and  the  Avorth  of  Christianit)-  ?  ...  If,  though  but  with  the  faith  of  a 


208  TIIE  DOGMA   OF   TUB  BIBLE'S  INFALUBILITT 

Sene&i  or  an  Antonine,  you  admit  the  co-operation  of  a  divine  Spirit 
in  souls  desirous  of  good,  even  as  the  breath  of  heaven  works  vari- 
ously in  each  several  plant  according  to  its  kind,  character,  j)eriod  of 
growth,  and  circumstiince  of  soil,  clime,  and  aspect,  —  on  whiit  ground 
can  you  assume  tkit  its  presence  is  incomj)atible  with  all  imperfection 
in  the  sulyect,  even  with  such  imperfection  as  is  the  mitural  accompani- 
ment of  the  unripe  season  ?  . . .  I  demand  for  the  l}il)le  only  the  justice 
which  you  grant  to  other  books  of  grave  authoi'ity,  and  to  other  pre  ved 
and  acknowledged  benefoctors  of  mankind.  Will  you  deny  a  spirit 
of  wisdom  in  Lord  Bacon,  because  in  particular  facts  he  did  not  pos- 
sess perfect  science,  or  an  entii'e  immunity  from  the  positive  eiTors 
which  result  from  imperfect  insight  ?  .  .  •  Thenceforward  your  doubts 
will  1)6  confined  to  such  parts  or  passages  of  the  received  canon  as 
seem  to  you  u'reconcilable  with  known  truths,  and  at  variance  ^vith  the 
tests  given  in  the  Scriptures  themselves,  and  as  shall  continue  so  to 
appear  after  you  have  examined  each  in  reference  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  WTiter  or  spealier,  the  dispensation  under  which  he  hved, 
the  purpose  of  the  particular  passage,  and  the  mtent  and  object  of  the 
Scriptures  at  large."  —  S.  T.  Coleridge:  Confessioiis  of  an  Inquir- 
ing Spirit ;  in  irorks,  vol.  v.  pp.  599,  G02-3,  GOG. 

For  Coi.EKiDGE's  utterances  of  deep  and  fervid  admiration  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  to  which  all  Christians  will  respond,  recourse  should  be  hud  to 
the  work  itself. 

Those  who  affirm,  in  a  general  and  indiscriminate  maimer,  tliat  all 
and  every  the  j^ai-ts  of  the  Old  Testament  were  immediately  dict;ited 
by  the  Holy  Sph-it,  and  th>t  to  each  the  same  kind  of  insj)iration 
belongs,  apjjear  to  me  to  go  farther  than  the  endence  warrants,  and  to 

lay  the  cause  of  revealed  religion  imdcr  the  feet  of  its  enemies 

These  facts  [erroneous  st;itements  of  numbers  in  the  Old  Testament"] 
must  fearfully  attect  the  theory  of  a  ser\-ile  Uterality  of  inspiration. 
It  is  that  theory  which  has  put  the  most  ostensibly  powerful  anus  into 
thc!  luuids  of  the  foes  to  God  and  man.  The  efforts  which  are  at  this 
moment  made,  amongst  the  metiiphysical  and  religious  distractions  of 
Germany,  by  Wisliccnus,  Ulilich,  and  other  real  or  jjrctended  Hegelians, 
find  a  chief  st;uuling-]j()int  in  their  assuming  tlwt  the  Christian  faith 
recjuires  a  literal  understanding  of  the  jjhniseology  in  the  Bible  which 
speaks  of  divine  acts  and  of  natural  objects  in  the  manner  that  was 
adaj)ted  to  the  temporary  and  lo&il  state  of  human  knowledge.  — 
Dii.  John  Pye  Smitu  :  Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Messiah,  voL  L 
pp.  21,  30. 


INJURIOUS  TO   CHRISTIANITY.  20D 

These  principles  of  interpretition  [tliis,  in  particuhr,  that  "  Scrip- 
ture is  its  own  interpreter"]  were  forgotten,  tliis  pre-eminence  of 
scriptm-al  above  human  system  strangely  revei'sed,  by  the  successors 
of  the  lleibrmers  [in  Germany].  .  .  .  False  ideas  of  inspiration,  intro- 
duced b)'  the  imaginary  necessities  of  the  argument  with  the  lloman- 
Lsts,  contributed  to  the  same  result :  from  the  fii'st  assumution,  that 
the  whole  of  Scripture  was  immediately  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
•was  derived  a  second,  that  all  must  be  of  actual  ralue.  To  prove  this, 
it  was  supposed  tliat  the  same  doctrines,  the  same  fundamental  truths 
of  Clu'istianity,  must  be  not  impHed  merely,  but  expressed,  by  all ;  a 
theory  which  must,  of  necessity,  do  much  violence  to  the  sacred  text, 
while  it  overlooked  the  beautilul  arrangement,  according  to  which  the 
difterent  doctrmes  of  revelation  are  each  prominently  convened  by 
that  mind  which  was  most  adapted  to  its  reception.  .  .  .  Yet  greater 
confusion  must  obviously  be  the  result  of  the  same  theory,  when 
applied  to  the  Old  Testament.  The  difference  of  the  law  and  tlie 
gospel,  which  Luther  had  so  vividly  seen,  was  obHtex-ated,  the  shadow 
identified  with  the  substance,  the  preparatory  system  with  the  perfect 
disclosure.  Not  content  with  finding  the  germs  of  Christian  doctrine 
in  the  Old  Testament,  or  those  dawmng  rays  which  were  to  prepare 
the  mental  eye  for  the  gi-adual  reception  of  fuUer  light,  but  whose 
entire  character  could  only  be  understood  by  those  who  should  witness 
the  rising  of  that  luminary  whose  apjiroach  they  announced ;  they  not 
only  considered  prophecy  as  being  throughout  an  inverted  history,  but 
held  tliat  all  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  Christianity  were  even  to 
the  Jews  as  much  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament  as  in  the  New,  and 
that  the  knowledge  of  these  doctrmes  was  as  necessary  to  their  salva- 
tion as  to  ours.  No  scientific  error  seems  to  Irnve  prepared  so  much 
for  the  subsequent  re-action,  in  which  all  prophecy  was  discarded,  all 
doctrine  considered  to  be  jjrecarious.  .  .  .  The  Scriptures,  thus  handled, 
instead  of  a  living  word,  could  not  but  become  a  dead  repository  of 
barren  technicaUties.  Less  important,  lastly,  though  perhaps  in  its 
efiects  more  immediately  dangerous,  was  the  corollary  to  the  same 
theory  of  mspiration,  that  even  historical  passages,  in  which  no  reli- 
gious truth  was  contained,  were  equally  inspired  with  the  rest,  and 
consequently  that  no  en-or,  however  minute,  could  even  here  be 
admitted.  Yet,  the  imparting  of  religious  ti-uth  being  the  object 
of  revelation,  any  fmtlier  extension  of  inspiration  would  appear  an 
unnecessary  miracle,  as  indeed  it  is  one  nowhere  ckimed  by  the  WTiters 

of  the  New  Testeiment. The  faith  of  the  Chiistian  depends  noi 

18* 


210  THE  DOGMA   OF  TUE  BIBLE'S  INFALLIBILITY 

upon  the  reception  of  one  or  the  other  book  of  Scripture ;  and  it  has 
been  a  supposition  pregnant  witli  mischief,  that  any  doubt  respecting 
an  individual  portion  of  the  Sacred  Volume  necessarily  implies  a 
diminished  value  for  its  whole  contents,  or  a  weakened  reverence 
and  gratitude  towards  its  divine  Giver.  —  E,  B.  PuSKY :  Causes  of 
the  Katiotialist  Cluirader  predominant  in  the  Theotogy  of  Ga-many, 
pp.  28-32,  154 ;  Lond.  1828. 

"  It  is  reirmrkable,"  says  a  critic  in  the  North  British  Review  f(jr  Feb- 
ruary, 1854,  "  tluit  the  first  ehiborate  defence  of  Gemian  divines  proceeded 
from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Pusky,  who,  though  he  has  i-etracted  his  book,  has  not 
refuted  his  arguments." 

While  Christians  of  all  denominations  have  ever  agreed  in  admit- 
ting the  inspiration  of  the  New  Testament,  on  no  one  i)oint  perhaps 
has  there  been  a  greater  diversity  of  opinion  than  on  the  character  of 
this  inspiration.  On  this  diversity  of  view,  one  general  remark  may 
be  hazarded ;  and  it  ^^ill  be  found,  I  think,  wan'anted  bj-  historieal 
foct.  In  proportion  as  inspiration  has  been  made  to  a])proach  to  a 
complete  inditing  of  the  Scrijjtures,  the  Scrijjtures  have  been  ne- 
glected. The  consequence  of  the  study  and  application  of  the  Bible, 
from  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  has  been,  gradually  and  progress- 
ively, to  limit  the  extent  of  inspiration ;  and,  by  so  doing,  to  vindicate 
the  holy  cliaracter  of  what  is  unquestionably  of  divine  origin,  and  to 
make  the  a])plication  of  the  rule  of  faith  more  sure.  It  was  only 
perhaps  in  tlie  worst  ages  of  superstition,  that  an  entire  insjjiration  of 
matter,  words,  and  composition  generally,  like  that  asserted  of  the 
Koran,  was  universally  contended  for.  —  Bisuop  IIiNDS:  History  of 
Christianity,  pp.  520-1 ;  Appendix,  Note  L 

It  is  great  folly  to  turn  our  faith  in  Christianity  into  a  Rupert's 
droj),  which  must  fly  into  shivers  the  moment  the  Book  of  Obadiah  or 
of  Esther,  or  tlie  second  and  third  Epistles  of  St.  John,  or  even  a  few 
disputed  verses,  are  broken  from  the  Ciuion  by  an  error  of  judgment. 
Such  confused,  ill-judging  defences  of  the  tmtli  must  naturally  breed 
scepticism  l)y  wholesale,  whenever  they  do  not  fall  on  the  rich  soil  of 
a  Protestant  Popery,  wliich  receives  any  reasoning  with  impUcit  faith 

that  leads  to  a  foregone  conclusion. IntldlibiUty,  or  perfect 

^cedom  from  all  error,  must  j)erish  with  one  faulty  reading  or  erro- 
neous version :  consequently,  the  logical  result  of  the  wliolc  jn-ocess, 
which  the  author  [Count  Gasparin]  commends  as  the  only  entrance  to 
tlie  School  of  Faith,  is  to  leave  our  faith  without  any  foundation 
whatever.     It  becomes  an  inverted  |  jxamid,  resting  on  its  point ;  and 


INJURIOUS   TO   CHRISTIANITY.  211 

this  point  itself  is  lost  and  buried  in  the  sands  »f  a  hundi'ed  versions 
and  ten  thousand  various  readings.  —  Christian  Observer  for  Alarch, 
18.55 ;  pp.  188,  192. 


It  •will  be  seen,  that,  amid  some  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the  precise 
natui  3  of  the  inspiration  possessed  by  the  writers  of  the  Bible,  none  of  the 
authors  from  whom  we  have  quoted,  with  the  equivocal  exception  of  Gas 
PARIN,  would  defend  the  old  opinion,  still  believed  by  ignorant  multitudes, 
that  every  word  contained  in  the  Bible  was  dictated  by  the  Spirit  of  God; 
that  no  mistake  or  error  exists  in  the  Sacred  Records,  whether  relating  to 
Bcience  or  to  history,  to  sentiment  or  to  reasoning,  to  philosophy  or  to  reli- 
gion; that  the  books  embraced  in  the  present  canons  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  neither  more  nor  less,  and  each  and  all  parts,  whether  patri- 
archal, Jewish,  or  Christian,  —  whether  historical,  poetical,  prophetic,  or 
doctrinal,  —  whether  obscure  or  plain,  mysterious  or  intelligible,  —  are 
equally  divine,  and  equally  binding  on  the  consciences  and  hearts  of  the 
disciples  of  Jesus. 

It  would  be  egregious  trifling  seriouslj'  to  refute  such  a  mass  of  absur- 
dities; and  even  the  professed  defenders  of  plenary  inspiration  are  forced  to 
make  so  many  exceptions  and  restrictions  to  their  theory  as  to  render  it 
practically  useless,  and  to  involve,  after  all,  the  principle  of  an  inspiration 
which  is  onh'  partial,  and  of  an  infallibility  which  is  not  absolutely  perfect. 
We  think  it  obvious  that  the  Bible  contains  numerous  passages,  and  even 
some  entire  books,  which  can  in  no  proper  sense  be  termed  divine  revela- 
tion ;  that  neither  the  Book  of  Esther  nor  the  Song  of  Solomon  possesses 
any  religious  character  whatever;  that  the  historical  portions  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  though  containing  in  the  main  a  true  record  of  things 
divine  and  supernatural  as  well  as  human,  are  not  in  themselves  a  revelation 
from  heaven,  anj'  more  than  are  the  historical  works  of  Gibbon,  Hume,  and 
Robertson;  that  the  reasonings  and  inferences  of  the  sacred  writers,  the 
modes  in  which  they  expressed  their  thoughts,  and  the  images  which  they 
used  to  illustrate  their  doctrines,  are  as  much  human  as  those  of  classical 
and  profane  authors,  who  have  given  to  the  world  the  products  of  their 
learning  or  their  genius.  We  are  far  from  meaning  to  put  the  Gospels  and 
the  Acts,  as  to  the  value  of  their  contents,  on  an  equality  with  the  histories 
of  the  Roman  empire,  or  of  the  kingdoms  of  England  and  Scotland ;  nor 
would  we  at  all  imply,  that,  in  our  opinion,  the  Books  of  Moses  and  the 
Prophets,  or  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  Peter,  and  John,  are  not  of  more  intrinsic 
worth  than  the  best  productions  of  any  philosophic  or  historical  school. 
They  are  no  doubt  immeasurablj-  superior,  not  in  the  pomp  of  their  expres- 
sions or  in  the  harmony  of  their  periods,  —  though  many  portions  will,  as  to 
beauty  or  sublimity  of  style,  bear  a  comparison  with  the  finest  compositions 
of  ancient  or  modern  times,  —  but  in  the  grandeur  of  the  subjects  treated 
of,  and  in  the  fact,  that,  though  not  free  from  some  of  the  errors  of  the  times 
in  which  tliev  were  written,  they  contain  those  revelations  of  the  Iufinit« 


212  THE   SCRIPTURES   INVALUABLE. 

Mind  which  speak  to  the  human  heart  and  conscience,  with  a  clearer,  ii  more 
penetrating  and  authoritative  voice,  than  unassisted  reason  ever  did,  of  the 
cliaracter  and  designs  of  God;  of  the  capacities,  duties,  responsibihties,  and 
destiny  of  man. 

To  prove  the  correctness  of  these  opinions  accords  not  with  tlie  purposes 
we  liave  in  view.  We  have  expressed  them,  because  they  seem  to  us  well 
founded,  and  harmonize  either  with  the  sentiments  we  have  quoted  from 
Trinitarian  writers,  or  with  principles  involved  in  the  acknowledgment  by 
others  of  a  partial  inspiration,  a  disputable  canon,  a  corrupt  text,  contradic- 
tory versions,  and  fallible  interpretations.  And  we  have  dwelt  more  at  length 
on  this  subject,  not  only  because  it  is  interesting  in  itself,  and  forms  -m 
essential  feature  in  the  discussions  of  the  present  day  as  to  the  conflicting 
claims  of  naturalism  and  supernaturalism,  but  also  because  one  of  the 
strongest  obstacles  to  inquiry  into  the  truth  of  Unitarian  principles  has  had 
its  origin  in  the  outcry  sometimes  raised  by  orthodox  divines  against  Unita- 
rians for  denying  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  sacred  penmen,  and  rejecting 
from  the  canon  certain  verses,  chapters,  and  books;  as  if  this  denial  and 
i-ejection  went  to  prove  their  contempt  of  revelation  itself,  and  their  secret 
conviction  that  the  doctrines  which  they  uphold  are  discountenanced  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  But  it  is  shown  that  this  inference  is  altogether  ground- 
less; for  opinions  of  the  same  or  of  a  similar  kind  have  been  entertained  by 
not  a  few  of  the  best  men  and  most  acute  thinkers  belonging  to  the  Trini- 
tarian body.  Believing,  with  Unitarians,  that,  with  very  few  exceptions,  the 
books  of  which  the  Bible  is  made  up  are  the  holiest  and  the  most  instructive 
that  have  ever  been  written,  and  that  they  are  invaluable  from  their  con- 
taining the  records  of  God's  revelations  to  his  human  family,  they  have  felt 
unable  to  close  their  eyes  to  the  fact,  that  there  are  in  them  many  errors 
and  discrepancies,  which,  though  not  affecting  the  substantial  truth  of  the 
narratives,  doctrines,  and  principles  they  contain,  preclude  altogether  the 
conception  of  infallibility  on  the  part  of  the  writers,  or  of  pure  and  abso- 
lute truth  in  every  part  of  their  compositions. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  Unitarians  have  disputed  the  genuineness  of 
certain  books  and  texts  in  the  Bible  which  are  sujiposed  to  have  a  bearing 
on  the  Trinitarian  controversy;  but  so  have  also  many  learned  men  in 
the  ranks  of  the  orthodox;  and  the  proper  question  to  be  asked  is,  not 
"  What  are  the  motioes  by  which  you  are  actuated  in  questioning  these 
books  and  texts  V"  but  "  What  are  your  reasons  for  deciding  in  favor  of 
their  spuriousness  or  their  corruption  V "  To  say  nothing  of  the  impro- 
priety of  confounding  inspiration  with  genuineness,  it  may  be  remarked, 
that  the  charge  of  dealing  falsely  with  the  word  of  God  comes  with  a  bad 
grace  from  persons  who  are  confessedly  unable  to  cite  a  single  passage  of 
Scripture  in  which  the  doctrine  of  a  Triune  God  is  expressly  mentioned, 
against  those  who  can  adduce  piv«sages  unequivocally  and  plainly  declara- 
tive of  their  great  doctrine  that  God  is  one,  and  that  the  Father  is  the  only 
true  God.  —  But  we  are  anticipating  another  portion  of  our  work,  and  foP 
bear  dwelling  on  this  poiut. 


WRONG  TREATMENT  OF  SCRIPTURE.  213 


SECT.  VI.  —  THE  IMPROPER  TREATMENT  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

We  pick  out  a  text  here  and  there  to  make  it  serve  our  turn ;  whereas,  if  we  take 
It  altogetlier,  and  considered  what  went  before,  and  what  followed  after,  we  should 
(Ind  it  meant  no  such  thing.  — John  Selden. 

In  every  age,  man  has  imported  his  own  crazes  into  the  Bible,  fancied  that  he  saw 
them  there,  and  then  drawn  sanctions  to  his  wickedness  or  absurdity  from  what  were 
nothing  else  than  fictions  of  his  own.  —  Thomas  De  Quincey. 

What  monsti-ous  absurdities  Avill  not  fanatics  be  able  to  elicit  from 
the  Scripture,  if  they  are  permitted  to  allege  every  detached  and  Ul- 
understood  word  and  syllable  in  confirmation  of  their  notions  ?  — 
John  Calvin  :  Institutes,  book  iv.  chap.  xvii.  23. 

It  is  no  wonder  if  they  can  accommod;ite  Scripture  expressions  to 
their  own  dreams  and  flmcies ;  for,  when  men's  fancies  are  so  possessed 
with  schemes  and  ideas  of  religion,  whatever  they  look  on  appears  of 
the  same  shape  and  color  wherewith  their  minds  are  already  tinctm'ed. 
.  .  .  All  the  metajjhoi-s  and  similitudes  and  allegories  of  Scripture  are 
easily  apphed  to  tlieir  purpose ;  and,  if  any  word  sound  like  the  tink- 
ling of  their  own  fancies,  it  is  no  less  than  a  demonstration  that  that 
is  the  meaning  of  the  Spirit  of  God;  and  every  little  shadow  and 
appearance  doth  mightily  confirm  them  in  their  preconceived  opi- 
nions. —  Dr.  Willum  Sherlock  :  Knowledge  of  Christ,  chap,  iiu 
sect.  4. 

The  first  and  gi-eat  mark  of  one  who  corrupts  the  word  of  God,  is 
introducing  into  it  human  mixtures;  either  the  errors  of  others,  or 
the  fancies  of  his  own  brain.  .  .  .  Scarce  ever  was  any  erroneous  opi- 
nion either  invented  or  received,  but  Scripture  was  quoted  to  defend 
it ;  and,  when  the  imposture  was  too  barefaced,  and  the  texts  cited  for 
it  ajjpeared  too  plainly  either  to  make  against  it,  or  to  be  nothing  to 
the  purpose,  then  recourse  has  usually  been  had  to  a  second  method 
of  con-upting  it,  —  by  mixing  it  with  felse  interpretations.  And  this 
is  done,  sometimes  by  repeating  the  words  wrong,  and  sometimes  liy 
repeating  them  right,  but  putting  a  WTong  sense  upon  tliem ;  one  that 
is  eitlier  strained  and  unnatural,  or  foreign  to  the  writer's  intention  in 
the  place  from  whence  they  are  taken ;  perhaps  contrarj-  either  to  his 
intention  in  that  place,  or  to  what  he  says  in  some  other  part  of  his 
writings.  And  tliis  is  easily  effected :  any  passage  is  easily  perverted, 
by  being  recited  singly,  without  any  of  tlie  preceding  or  following 
verses.  — John  Wesley:  Sermon  133;  in  f forks,  voL  ii.  p.  504.  . 


214  W^RONQ   TREATMENT   OF   SCRIPTURE. 

There  is  no  more  common  error  in  many  departments  of  study 
and  esjjecially  in  theology,  than  the  prevalence  of  a  love  of  system 
over  the  love  of  truth.  Men  are  often  so  much  cajjtlvated  by  the 
aspect  of  what  seems  to  them  a  regular,  beautiful,  and  well-connected 
theory,  as  to  adopt  it  hastily,  without  inquiring,  in  the  outset,  how  far 
it  is  conformable  to  facts  or  to  scriptural  authority ;  and  thus,  often  on 
one  or  two  passages  of  Scripture,  have  built  up  an  ingenious  and  con- 
sistent scheme,  of  which  the  far  greater  part  is  a  tissue  of  their  own 
reasonuigs  and  conjectures.  —  Archbishop  Wil^tkly  :  Essays  on 
Difficulties  in  Paul's  fVritings,  pp.  243-4. 

Too  many  nomuial  Clmstians  entertiiin  only  the  most  miserable 
idea  of  the  nature  of  the  gospel  they  profess  to  believe.  Their  only 
notion  too  often  consists  in  a  confused  general  impression  of  a  certiiin 
sacredness  in  Scripture,  which  produces  little  effect  beyond  that  of 
making  them  afraid  to  enter  its  precincts,  and  search  its  recesses  for 
themselves,  and  yet  more  fearful  lest  its  sanctity  should  be  invaded  by 
others.  And  their  dread  of  openly  encountering  any  contradictions, 
and  their  anxious  desire  to  shelter  themselves  under  even  the  most 
frivolous  explanations,  if  it  does  not  betray  a  lurking  distrust  of  the 
proper  evidences  of  their  fliith,  at  least  evinces  the  lowest  and  most 
unworthy  conceptions  of  the  sjjirit  and  meaning  of  the  Bil)lc,  and  an 
almost  toUil  absence  of  due  distinction  between  the  design  and  a])pli- 
Ciition  of  the  several  portions  of  which  it  is  made  up.  That  such 
misconception  should  prevail  is  indeed  a  lamentable,  but  not  a  sur- 
prising, instance  of  the  Hability  of  human  nature  to  misapply  the  best 
gifts,  whether  of  providence  or  grace.  And  its  influence  has  been 
unhappily  cherished  and  confirmed  by  the  prevalence  of  those  theo- 
logical systems  which  have  dictited  the  practice  of  litcralizing  ujjon 
all  the  expressions  of  the  sacred  writers;  so  that  the  magnificent 
imagery  of  the  finest  jjassages  of  inspiration  is  reduced  to  the  lowest 
stiuidard  of  verbal  dogmatism ;  and  minds  inc;vpal)le  of  apjjreciating 
tlie  divine  sublimity  of  those  descriptions  tliink  to  add  to  the.  evidence 
of  their  truth  by  a  forced  and  unnatural  perversion  of  their  meaning. 
With  others,  again,  the  sincere,  l)ut  (as  we  must  consider  it)  misguided, 
R])irit  of  religious  fanaticism  jiroduces  similar  effects.  Ulinded  to  all 
but  the  internal  light  of  his  spiritual  imjiressions,  the  enthusiast  will 
always  entertain  a  deeply-rooted  and  devoted  hostility  against  any 
such  distinctions  as  those  here  advociited.  Maint;uning  the  literal 
a])i)lic<vtion  of  every  sentence,  every  syllable,  of  the  divine  word,  he 
rejects  as  impious  the  slightest  depirturc  from  it     Human  reusim. 


WRONG   TREATMENT  OF   SCRIPTURE.  215 

along  with  all  science  which  is  its  offspring,  is  at  best  carnal  and 
unsanctified ;  and,  should  any  of  its  conclusions  be  advanced  in  con- 
tradiction to  the  letter  of  a  scriptural  text,  this  completely  seals  its 
condemnation  as  absolutely  sinful,  and  equivalent  to  a  rejection  of 
revelation  altogether.  —  Baden  Powell  :  Connection  of  JVatural 
and  Divine  Truth,  pp.  242-3. 

A  want  of  due  investigation  of  what  is  really  the  proper  object  of 
reverence  in  the  Sacred  Volume  has  caused  that  reverence  to  be  most 
eiToneously  appUed.  When  the  learned  Dr.  Bloomfield  prefers  a 
"charge  of  irreverence  for  the  Book  which  was  intended  to  make 
men  wise  unto  salvation  "  (Pref.  p.  x.),  against  those  who,  like  Gries- 
bach,  would  alter  the  commonly  received  text,  he  begs  the  question, 
that  that  text  constitutes  that  Book ;  a  point  which  cannot  be  conceded 
to  him.  That  text  is  now  clearly  discovered  to  be,  in  numerous  places, 
a  corruption  of  "  the  Book  "  which  demands  our  reverence ;  and  our 
reverence  is  evinced  in  restoring  it  from  the  corruptions  which  it  has 
sustained,  to  the  most  ancient  and  purest  standai'd  that  we  possess. 
Thus,  our  reverence  for  "  the  Book  "  is  to  be  ascertained  by  determining 
the  previous  question,  "  Which  is  the  Book  to  which  our  reverence  is 
legitimately  due  ?  "  K  we  direct  it  to  the  least  corrupted,  there  is  no 
irreverence ;  if  to  the  most  corrupted,  the  reverence  savors  of  super- 
stition and  of  bigotry.  —  Granvllle  Penn  :  Annotations  to  the  Book 
of  (he  jYew  Covenant,  p.  43. 

Few  sources  of  error  have  been  more  copious,  above  all  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  than  the  propensity  to  realize  images 
—  which,  in  fact,  is  a  main  element  in  all  idolatry,  —  and  to  deduce 
general  propositions  from  incidental  and  partial  illustrations.  —  JuLlUS 
Charles  H^vre  :  7^  Victory  of  Faith,  p.  37. 

Any  human  abstract  which  comes  in  between  my  Bible  and  me 
distorts  Scripture,  to  some  extent,  by  abridging  it.  It  brings  things 
together  which  were  separate,  giving  them  its  own  arrangement ;  it 
destroys  delicate  shiides  of  meanmg,  and  cuts  off  all  the  brilliancy  and 
the  life  of  the  word.  Tlie  dried  flower  in  a  collection  still  preserves 
its  essential  characteristics,  and  suffices  for  the  classification  of  the 
botanist,  though  it  has  lost  its  shape,  and  its  hang,  and  its  delicate 
colors,  and  its  sweet  smelL  But  Christianity,  dried  up  in  a  confession 
of  faith,  does  not  even  retain  all  its  characteristics :  the  proj)ortion  of 
its  parts  is  all  changed,  and  the  eye  of  the  believer  can  scarcely  recog- 
nize it.  —  Count  Agexor  de  G.vspabin  :  The  Schools  of  Doubt  mid 
t1i£  School  of  Faith,  p.  177. 


216  WTION'G   TREATMENT  OF   SCRIPTURE. 

"When  we  see  methods  of  interpretation  apjjlied  to  them  wliich  no 
other  book  mil  bear,  and  which  would  hold  any  one  up  to  scorn  if  he 
should  adopt  them  in  explaining  a  classic,  liow  cm  it  be  expected  that 
the  understiuiding  and  reason  will  not  distrust  them,  and  sooner  or 
liter  be  sure  to  revolt  against  them  ?  Among  all  the  al)uses  of  the  Old 
Teskxment,  none  are  more  conspicuous  than  those  which  result  from 
sectarian  \-iews  and  purposes.  What  a  mere  lump  of  wax  does  the 
Bible  become  in  the  hands  of  a  zealous  defender  of  sect,  perfectly  mould- 
able  at  his  pleasure !  No  Liws  of  bnguage  or  of  gnmimar  stiind  in  his 
way.  The  original  intention  of  the  wTiter  of  the  Scripture  is  little  or 
nothing  to  the  purpose.  The  occult  meaning  is  summoned  to  his  aid ; 
Rnd  this  is  always  read}',  at  his  bidding,  to  assume  every  jjossiljle  form. 
Armed  in  this  way,  his  antagonists  are  cut  dowii  by  whole  ranks  at  a 
blow,  and  the  standard  of  sect  waves  speedily  over  that  of  the  Bible.  — 
Moses  Stuart:  Crit.  Hist,  of  the  Old-Test.  Canon,  pp.  410-11. 

Nothing  can  be  more  preposterous  [than  the  law  of  rigidly  hteral 
interpretiitionj.  All  agree  tlut  the  Scrijjtures  ought  to  be  so  inter- 
preted as  to  exj)rcss  the  mind  of  their  Author,  and  the  sense  wliich 
the  writers  of  them  intended  to  convey.  ...  If  there  be  doubtfid  and 
obscure  passages  in  their  writmgs,  they  are  to  be  rendered  cle;xr  and 
intelligible  by  those  that  are  not  obscure  and  doubtful  ...  To  afRrm 
a  literal  construction  of  those  passages  wliich  are  professedly  contained 
in  the  most  figurative  and  symbolic;vl  books  of  the  Scriptures,  would 
go  for  toward  destroying  all  the  fixed  laws  of  sound  interpretation. 
This  would  be  to  make  prose  of  poetry,  and  bokl  imagery  as  though 
it  were  doctrinal  statement.  No  sober  man  would  interpret  such 
passages  as  one  would  interpret  a  law,  a  deed,  a  contract,  or  a  last  will 
and  testiiment  To  do  so  would  be  a  perversion  of  knguage,  and  aa 
outrage  upon  common  sense  and  common  honesty.  —  Dr.  Gardiner 
Spring  :   Glori/  of  Christ,  vol.  ii.  pp.  109-11. 

No  m  ui  will  call  in  question  wliat  he  concedes  to  be  a  real  decision 
of  God,  however  made ;  l)ut  there  have  l)een,  and  still  arc,  tliose  who 
think  so  much  more  of  the  verbal  "revelations  of  God  than  of  any 
other,  that  they  almost  overlook  the  fact,  tliat  the  foundations  of  all 
possible  knowledge  have  been  laid  by  God  in  the  consciousness  and 
the  intuitive  percejjtions  of  the  mind  itself.  Forgetful  of  this  fact, 
they  h;ivc  often,  by  unfounded  interj)ret;itions  of  Scripture,  done  vio- 
lence to  the  mind,  and  overruled  tlie  decisions  made  l)y  God  himself 
through  it,  and  then  souglit  shelter  in  faitli  and  mystery.  —  Db. 
Edward  Beecui:u  :  Covjlid  of  ^^ges,  p.  20. 


BIBLICAL  CRITICISM.  217 


SECT.  VII.  —  PRINCIPLES  OF   CRITICISM  AND   INTERPRETATION, 
APPLICABLE  CHIEFLY  TO   THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


A  critic  on  the  sacred  book  should  be 
Candid  and  learned,  dispassionate  and  free; 
Free  from  the  wayward  bias  bigots  feel, 
From  fancy's  influence,  and  intemperate  zeaL 


CowPEa. 


§  1.   Criticism. 


Before  presenting  the  laws  of  criticism  commonly  laid  down  by  Biblical 
scholars,  it  may  be  well,  for  the  sake  of  those  who  have  paid  little  attention 
to  the. subject,  to  quote  the  following  observations  on  the  manuscripts  of  the 
New  Testament,  by  Dr.  G.  J.  Pi^vnck  (Introduction  to  Sacred  Philology, 
p.  51):  "  By  means  of  the  most  laborious  researches,  the  latest  efforts  of 
criticism  have  resulted  in  the  conclusion,  that  most  of  the  manuscripts 
•which  we  possess  belong  to  three  ftimilies,  or  may  be  traced  to  three  recen- 
sions, the  diversity  of  which  cannot  be  doubted.  An  Alexandrine,  a  Con- 
Btantinopolitan,  and  a  Western  copy,  may  have  been  the  originals  of  all  the 
manuscripts,  amounting  to  some  hundreds,  which  we  have  of  the  writings 
of  the  New  Testament.  Another  recension,  arising  fi-om  Asia,  may  perhaps 
be  added  to  these." 

[1]  The  first  place  belongs  to  ancient,  uninterpolated,  good  Greek 
copies.  Their  authority  is  paramount.  From  them  chiefly  should 
the  text  be  derived.  The  nearer  their  testimony  approaches  to  una- 
nimity, the  greater  certainty  belongs  to  it.  And  the  authority  of 
ancient  manuscripts  is  unquestionably  superior  to  that  of  the  modem, 
thougli  the  number  of  the  latter  is  very  much  greater.  —  Dr.  Samuel 
Davidson  :  Treatise  on  Biblical  Criticism,  vol.  ii.  p.  380. 

Dr.  John  Hey  (Lectures  in  Divinity,  vol.  i.  p.  48)  and  other  critics 
remark,  what  is  obviou-;ly  just,  but  not  always  borne  in  mind,  that  "  the 
earlier  manuscript,  ceteris  paribus,  is  more  likely  to  be  right  than  the  later, 
because  every  copying  is  liable  to  new  errors." 

The  mollification  to  which  this  rule  is  subject,  we  present  from  the  pen 
of  G.  F.  Sf.ilkk  (Biblical  Hermeneutics,  ^  235, 1):  "  As  the  value  of  a  manu- 
script rests  not  only  on  its  antiquity,  but  also  on  the  authority  of  the  class 
or  family  to  which  it  belongs,  and  on  the  antiquity  of  tliat  codex  from  which 
it  was  immediately  taken,  a  manuscript  of  the  tenth  or  eleventh  century 
may  thus  be  of  far  more  value  than  one  which  has  descended  from  the  fifth 
century  to  our  times;  namely,  when  the  manuscript  of  the  tenth  century 
can  be  proved  to  have  been  immediately  derived  from  one  of  the  third  or 
fourtli  " 

ID 


218  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM. 

[2]  Generally  speaking,  a  more  difficult  reading,  cateris  paribus 
as  to  evidence,  is  to  be  preferred  to  one  which  is  altogether  easy.  .  .  . 
Transcribers  would  naturally  change  that  which  is  obscure  fen  that 
which  is  simple,  and  not  vice  versa.  —  L)R.  S.  P.  Tregelles  :  27i€ 
Book  of  Revelation,  Introduction,  p.  xxxi. 

Referring  to  his  own  rule,  which  is  simihir  to  that  just  given,  Thomas 
Hai-.twell  Houne  (Introduction,  p.  292)  remarlis:  "  This  canon  is  the 
touchstone  which  distinguishes  the  true  critics  from  tlie  false.  Be>'gi:l, 
Wetsteijj,  and  Giuksuacii,  critics  of  the  first  rank,  have  admitted  its 
authority;  but  those  of  inferior  order  generally  prefer  the  easy  reading,  for 
no  other  reason  than  because  its  meaning  is  most  obvious." 

[3]  That  reading  should  be  regarded  as  genuine  from  wliich  all 
the  others  may  be  naturally  and  easily  derived.  —  Dr.  Samuel 
Davidson  :  Treatise  on  Biblical  Criticism,  p.  376. 

To  illustrate  this  principle.  Dr.  Davidson  says:  "  In  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  if 
Of  were  the  true  reading,  the  alteration  of  it  into  i^eof  would  readily  suggest 
itself  to  those  who  knew  that  the  'mystery  of  godliness '  related  to  tho 
Divine  Word.  And  of  naturally  gave  rise  to  6,  the  neuter,  for  the  sake  of 
grammatical  accuracy.  But,  if  i^^eof  were  the  original  reading,  it  is  difficult 
to  understand  why  or  how  of  could  come  into  the  mind  of  critics  and  tran- 
scribers. Still  more  difficult  is  it  to  imagine  6  giving  rise  to  i9fof  or  og. 
Hence,  by  this  canon,  6f  should  be  preferred." 

[4]  A  reading  contradictor)'  to  a  doctrine  which  the  same  apostle 
has  delivered  in  another  passage  is  to  be  regarded  as  spurious,  becxuse 
contradictions  are  improbable  in  an  accurate  writer,  and  imjjossiblc  in 
one  who  is  divinely  inspired.  —  J.  D.  MiCHAELls :  Introduction  to  llie 
jYejt)  Testarnent,  vol.  i.  p.  328. 

Or,  as  more  simply  expressed  by  G.  F.  Seiler  (Biblical  Hormencutics, 
§  235,  13):  "  A  reading  which  harmonizes  with  the  style  and  manner  of 
thinking  of  any  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  is  to  be  preferred  to 
another  which  is  less  agreeable  thereto."  • 

[5]  The  reading  of  a  passage  which  contains  a  disputed  doctrine  in 
religion  is  strongly  to  be  suspected  in  tbe  event  of  doubts  arising 
resjiecting  its  genuineness,  when  there  are  only  some  testimonies 
against  it;  for  it  is  fair  to  conjecture  that  it  may  have  been  altered 
through  a  zeal  for  orthodoxy.  —  G.  F.  Seller  :  Biblical  Ilermeneutics. 
§  235,  14. 

In  accordance  with  this  remark.  Dr.  Davidson  (Treatise  on  BiMiciii 
Criticism,  vol.  ii.  p.  37i>)  says  that  "  readings  which  strongly  favor  crlliodox 


BIBLICAL  CRITICISM.  219 

opinions  are  suspicious.  Hence  i?e6f,  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  was  made  out  of  og. 
1  Jolin  V.  7  may  also  be  referred  to  this  head.  So,  too,  ■&£bv  inserted  in  the 
fourth  verse  of  Jude's  Epistle.  Perhaps  the  reading  ■&ebg  in  John  i.  18, 
instead  of  vibg,  belongs  here." 

T.  Hautwell  Hukne  (Introduction,  vol.  i.  p.  285)  says,  "  It  is  a  fact 
that  some  corruptions  have  been  designedly  made  by  those  who  are  termed 
orthodox,  and  have  subsequently  been  preferred  when  so  made,  in  order  to 
favor  some  received  opinion,  or  to  preclude  an  objection  against  it."  Among 
other  texts  which  have  been  thus  corrupted,  he  instances  Mark  xiii.  32. 
Luke  xxii.  43. 

J.  D.  JIicHAELis  (Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  vol.  i.  pp.  323-6) 
ipeaks  to  the  same  purpose. 

[6]  Conjectural  readings,  strongly  supported  by  the  sense,  the 
connection,  the  natui-e  of  the  language,  or  similar  texts,  may  some- 
times have  probability,  especially  when  it  can  be  shown  that  they 
would  easily  have  given  occiisioa  to  the  present  reading.  —  Dr. 
Gilbert  Gerard:  Institutes  of  Biblical  Criticism,  §  794. 

So  also  T.  Haetvvell  Hokne,  in  his  Introduction,  vol.  i.  p.  2S9. 

In  his  Principles  of  Biblical  Interpretation,  vol.  i.  pp.  199,  200,  J.  A. 
Eknesti  says:  ''  Nor  is  conjectural  criticism  to  be  entirely  neglected,  which 
the  most  learned  and  right-thinking  theologians  have  not  scrupled  occa- 
sionally to  use;  but  rashness  must  be  avoided,  and  a  modest  diligence  must 
be  exerted." 

J.  D.  MiCHAELis  (Introduction  to  New  Testament,  vol.  ii.  p.  392)  ob- 
serves: "There  are  certain  passages  in  the  Greek  Testament,  in  which  I 
can  hardly  refrain  from  the  use  of  critical  conjecture,  in  opposition  to  the 
authority  of  all  our  written  documents;  some  of  which  passages  the  reader 
will  find  in  my  Exposition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  If  it  is  asked 
why  I  would  admit  in  those  cases  the  right  of  critical  conjecture  in  opposi- 
tion to  written  authority,  I  answer,  Because  the  text  itself,  after  all  the 
pains  which  have  been  bestowed  upon  it,  still  seems  to  be  sometimes  faulty, 
or  at  least  to  be  capable  of  an  alteration  that  would  be  more  suitable  to  the 
context,  and  better  adapted  to  the  design  of  the  writer."  But,  in  p.  387, 
this  learned  and  generally  candid  theologian  censures  the  conduct  of  those 
"  Socinians  "  who,  endeavoring  to  act  on  his  own  principles,  have  suggested 
an  alteration  in  the  text  of  John  i.  1,  and  Rom.  ix.  5. 

On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Davidson  (Treatise  on  Bib.  Grit.  vol.  ii.  pp.  371-2) 
says,  that,  in  the  New  Testament,  "  critical  conjecture  is  rendered  wholly 
supei-fluous  by  the  very  copious  array  of  proper  resources;  so  copious  that  it 
will  never  desert  the  critic,  or  leave  liim  at  a  loss  in  detei-mining  the  reading 
of  a  particular  passage."  But  he  concedes,  that,  "  althongli  it  is  unneces- 
sary, and  therefore  improper,  to  change  the  Greek  words  without  authority 
we  may  freely  put  forth  our  judgment  in  regard  to  accents,  marks  of  aspira- 
tiou,  and  punctuation,  bince  these  formed  no  part  of  the  primitive  text." 


220  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM. 

[7]  A  reading  certainly  expressed  in  an  ancient  version  is  of  the 
same  authority  as  if  it  had  been  found  in  a  manuscript  of  the  age 
wlicn  that  version  was  made,  and,  consequently,  of  greater  authority 
tlian  if  found  in  any  single  manuscript  now  extant ;  and  tlut  in  propor- 
tion to  the  sujjcrior  antiquity  of  the  ^•ersion.  —  Dr.  Gilbert  Gerard  : 
Institutes,  §  336. 

In  his  Introduction  to  Sacred  Pliilology,  p.  53,  Dr.  Planck  makes  the 
followiiio;  iin[)()rtaiit  remarks:  "  Some  of  the  versions  which  we  liave  of  it 
[of  the  New  Testament  |  are  considerably  older  than  all  our  manuscripts. . . . 
In  all  cases,  it  may  be  presumed  that  these  translations  were  made  from 
manuscripts  which  at  the  time  were  not  entirely  new;  and  therefore  the  age 
of  some  may  have  almost  reached  that  of  the  autographs.  Consequently, 
whenever  it  can  be  determined,  from  one  of  these  versions,  what  was  the 
reading  of  the  manuscript  from  which  the  version  was  made,  its  antiquity 
gives  it  an  authority  vastly  superior  to  that  which  auy  manuscript  uow 
existing  can  claim." 

[8]  When  a  jilace  is  interpolated  by  the  introduction  of  a  suppo- 
sititious clause,  the  works  of  the  ancient  fathers  will  sometimes  enable 
us  to  infer  with  tolerable  correctness,  not  only  the  spuriousness  of  the 
clause,  but  also  the  time  when  it  may  have  been  casually  introduced 
into  the  text.  If  the  pkce  is  quoted  by  many  and  various  WTitera 
uniformly  without  the  addition,  this  is  a  cert;iin  proof  tluit  it  was  added 
by  some  later  hand.  The  hrst  quotiition,  therefore,  in  which  it  occurs, 
affords  grounds  for  conjecturing  when  and  where  the  interpolation 
was  first  casually  made.  —  G.  J.  Planck  :  Introduction  to  Sacred 
Philology,  p.  o6. 

"  Thus,  for  example,"  continues  Dr.  Plakck,  "  it  maj'  be  considered  as 
one  of  the  most  important  collateral  proofs  of  the  spuriousness  of  1  John  v.  7, 
that  no  Greek  father,  even  to  the  fourth  century,  seems  to  have  been 
acquainted  with  it,  as  it  is  cited  by  none  for  a  considerable  time  after  tlie 
breaking  out  of  the  Arian  controversies;  wliilo,  on  the  other  hand,  the  ear- 
lier use  which  was  made  of  it  by  Latin  fathers  places  it  almost  beyond 
doubt,  that  the  interpolation  was  first  made  in  Latin  copies,  and  from  these 
introduced  into  Greek." 


These  few  rules  will  pi-(il);ilily  be  sufncient  to  give  the  mere  Knglisn 
reader  a  general  idea  of  the  principles  by  which  Biblical  critics  are  guided 
in  respect  to  the  text  chiedy  of  the  New  Testament.  The  subject  is,  un- 
questionaijly,  interesting;  for  on  the  purity  of  tiie  text  depends,  in  a  great 
measure,  the  correctness  of  the  versions  taken  from  it.  But,  as  its  study 
demands  a  great  amount  of  erudition  and  labor,  the  unlearned  reader  of  the 
Scriptures  will,  of  course,  have,  in  most  cases  of  difliculty,  to  confide  in 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION.  221 

the  results  arrived  at  by  men  who  have  devoted  their  talents  and  their  lives 
to  sacred  criticism ;  his  confidence  in  their  decisions  being  tiie  stronger  in 
proportion  to  the  unanimity  and  acknowledged  skill  with  which  tliey  have 
been  made  by  critics  of  various  and  opposite  denominations.  It  is  conso- 
latory to  reflect,  that,  however  desirable  it  may  be  to  possess  the  records 
of  divine  revelation  in  a  state  approximating  to  that  in  which  they  were  left 
by  their  respective  writers,  the  essential  truths  of  religion  and  of  Chris- 
tianity are  not  seriously  affected  by  the  corruptions  of  the  original  text,  or 
by  the  different  and  numerous  translations  of  the  Bible  which  have  been 
published. 

§  2.   Interpketation. 

[1]  When  different  reasons  for  the  meaning  of  a  word  o]5pose 
each  other,  greater  weight  ought  to  be  given  to  grammatical  than  to 
dogmatical  reasons ;  because  a  proposition  may  be  strictly  true  which 
is  not  contained  in  the  Avords  of  the  text,  —  J.  A.  Ernesti  :  Principles 
of  Biblical  Interpretation,  voL  i.  p.  37. 

[2]  The  more  an  interpreter  changes  places  altogether  with  his 
author,  in  respect  to  his  mode  of  thinking  and  his  sentiments,  the 
happier  wiil  he  be  in  discovering  and  expressing  the  sense  of  his 
words.  Hence  it  follows,  —  1.  That  every  good  interpreter  should 
Lay  aside  for  the  time  his  own  system,  in  order  to  study  without  pre- 
judice the  system  of  his  author.  2,  That  he  endeavor  to  guard,  with 
all  possible  precaution,  against  transferring  into  ancient  writings  any 
modern  opuiions  or  dogmas,  whether  theological  or  philosoplxicaL  — 
G.  F,  Seller  :  Biblical  Hemieneutics,  §  40. 

These  rules  will  receive  illustration  trom  the  judicious  remarks  of 
Baden  Powell  (Connection  of  Natural  and  Divine  Truth,  p.  248):  "  When 
a  commentator  of  the  present  day  sets  about  to  put  a  particular  interpreta- 
tion on  a  passage  in  an  ancient  author,  lie  may,  upon  an  examination  of  the 
critical  sense  of  the  words,  and  the  construction  of  the  sentence,  make  out 
a  meaning  which  to  him  is  plausible,  and  in  itself  consistent.  But  there  is 
another  question  entirely  distinct  from  this,  too  often  quite  overlooked,  hut 
essentially  important  to  a  true  interpretation;  viz.,  whether  it  is  probable, 
from  concurrent  cnxumstances,  that  this  was  the  sense,  in  point  of  fact, 
actually  intended  by  the  author.  It  is  one  thing  to  make  out  such  a  sense 
!\s,  to  our  apprehension,  the  words  may  bear;  quite  another,  to  infer  that 
•Jiis  was  the  senses  really  in  the  mind  of  the  writer." 

[3]  Ascertain  the  ttsns  loquendi,  or  notion  affixed  to  a  word  by 
the  persons  in  general  by  whom  the  language  either  is  now  or  formerly 
was  spoken,  and  especially  in  the  particular  connection  in  which  such 
notion  is  affixed.     The  meaning  of  a  word  used  by  any  writer  is  tha 

19* 


222  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION. 

meaning  affixed  to  it  by  tliose  for  whom  he  inmicdiately  ^^Tote ;  for 
there  is  a  kind  of  natural  compact  between  tliose  who  VTite  and  those 
who  speak  a  language,  by  which  they  are  mutually  bound  to  use  words 
in  a  certain  sense.  —  T.  Hahtwell  Houne  :  Introduction,  vol.  L 
page  325. 

In  the  application  of  this  rule,  the  following  remark  by  Dr.  Seileb 
(Biblical  Ilermeneutics,  ^  261,  5)  should  be  carefully  attended  to:  "  That  is 
not  always  the  true  sense  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  and  of  the  writings  of  the 
apostles,  which  the  Jews,  bj'  reason  of  their  prejudices,  attached  to  them; 
but  that  which  they  should  have  attached  to  them,  from  a  consideration  of 
the  scope  of  the  speakers  and  writers,  John  iii.  5-16 ;  vi.  60,  et  seq. ;  viii. 
51-57." 

[4]  As  ever}'  (correct)  ■«Titer  is  accustomed  to  use  his  words  in 
one  and  the  same  sense  in  treating  of  the  same  subject,  so,  in  inter- 
preting the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  a  difficult  passage  of  an 
e\angelist  or  apostle  is  best  explained  by  a  comparison  of  pamllel 
passages  in  his  own  writings.  The  meaning  of  Paul's  phraseology,  for 
instixnce,  is  to  be  determined  by  a  comparison  vnXh  his  own  Epistles, 
and  that  of  John  by  a  comparison  with  his.  —  G.  F.  Seiler  :  Biblical 
Henneneutics,  §  252,  1. 

The  qualifying  word  "correct"  is  inserted  probably  by  Seller's  editor, 
Dr.  Wkight. 

hi  applying  this  rule,  the  reader  may  be  assisted  by  the  following 
remarks  of  Archbishop  Whately  (Sermons  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  296): 
"It  is  an  unsafe  practice  so  to  dwell  on  the  interpretation  of  any  particular 
word  occurring  in  Scripture,  as  to  hiiply  that  each  term  must  have,  like 
one  of  the  technical  terms  of  any  science,  exactly  the  same  meaning  in 
every  pass;ige  where  it  is  emploj-ed.  It  is  not  an  uncommon  plan,  and  it  is 
a  very  dangerous  one,  to  lay  down  precise  definitions  of  the  meaning  of 
each  of  the  jjrincipal  words  used  in  Scripture,  and  then  to  interpret  every 
sentence  in  which  they  occur  according  to  those  definitions.  The  works 
of  the  sacred  writers  are  popular,  not  scientific.  They  did  not  intend  to 
confine  themselves,  like  the  author  of  any  philosophical  system,  to  some 
strict  technical  sense  of  each  word,  but  expressed  their  meaning,  in  each 
^.Hssage,  in  such  language  as  seemed,  on  each  occasion,  best  fitted  to  con- 
vey it." 

[5]  AVhcre  a  word  has  several  significations  in  common  use.  tliat 
must  be  selected  which  best  suits  tlie  passiige  in  question,  and  which 
is  consistent  with  an  author's  known  character,  sentiments,  and  situa- 
tion, and  the  known  circumstances  under  which  he  wrote.  -—  TnuMAS 
Hartwell  Hoicne  :  Introduction,  vol.  i.  p.  325. 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION.  228 

Or,  as  expressed  more  briefly  by  Dr.  G.  J.  Planck  (Introduction  to 
Sacred  Pliilology,  p.  147):  "In  interpreting  a  writing,  constant  referenae 
Bliould  be  had  to  the  character,  views,  and  known  principles  of  the  writer 
from  whom  it  originates."  For  this  rule  he  assigns  tlie  following  reason, — 
"  that  a  man  of  understanding  will  not  readily  act  in  opposition  to  his  own 
design;  will  not,  in  general,  easily  contradict  himself;  will  not,  without 
some  evident  cause,  alter  his  opinions." 

[6]  Wherever  any  doctrine  is  manifest,  either  from  the  whole 
tenor  of  di\'ine  revelation  or  from  its  scope,  it  must  not  be  weakened 
or  set  aside  by  a  few  obscure  passages.  —  T.  Hartwell  Horne  : 
fntrodudion,  vol.  i.  p.  343. 

This  rule  is  frequently  neglected;  but  no  one  will  theoretically  deny  its 
validity.  Dr.  J.  P.  Smith  (Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Messiah,  vol.  i.  p.  57/ 
well  remarks,  that  "  it  is  contrary  to  all  just  rules  of  evidence,  and  to  the 
conduct  of  the  best  and  wisest  part  of  mankind,  in  relation  to  innumerable 
cases,  philosophical,  moral,  and  political,  to  violate  or  renounce  great  prin- 
ciples, which  have  been  sufficiently  established  by  prior  proofs,  because 
minor  difficulties  arise  of  which  we  are  not  able  to  find  a  solution." 

[7]  General  terms  are  used  sometimes  in  their  whole  extent,  and 
sometimes  in  a  restricted  sense;  and  whether  they  are  to  be  under- 
stood in  the  one  way  or  in  the  other  must  depend  upon  the  scopi, 
sul)ject-matter,  context,  and  parallel  passages.  — T.  Hartwell  Horne  : 
ItUrodudion,  vol.  i.  p.  325. 

Dr.  Gerard  (Institutes,  §  844)  illustrates  his  rule,  which  is  the  same  as 
that  just  quoted,  by  a  great  number  of  examples.  Christians  of  all  deno- 
minations will  admit  its  justness  and  importance;  but  probably  few  apply 
it  without  sometimes  being  influenced  by  dogmatical  prepossessions. 

[8]  Before  we  conclude  upon  the  sense  of  a  text,  so  as  to  prove 
any  thing  by  it,  we  must  be  sure  that  such  sense  is  not  repugnant  to 
natural  reason.  —  T.  Hartwell  Horne  :  Introduction,  voL  i.  p.  326. 

In  p.  394,  the  same  writer  justly  observes,  that  "  articles  of  revelation 
may  be  above  our  reason;  but  no  doctrine  which  comes  from  God  can  be 
irrational,  or  contrary  to  those  moral  truths  which  are  clearly  perceived  by 
the  mind  of  man." 

Dr.  Robert  South  (Animadversions  on  Sherlock's  Vindication,  p.  133) 
says:  "  Whatsoever  is  a  truth  in  natural  reason  cannot  be  contradicted  by 
any  other  truth  declared  by  revelation,  since  it  is  impossible  for  any  one 
truth  to  contradict  another." 

To  the  same  purpose  might  be  quoted  a  host  of  other  writers ;  but,  though 
few  would  venture  to  deny  the  truth  of  the  principle  here  laid  down,  there 
are  many  who  seem  to  act  very  inconsistently  in  its  application 


224  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION. 

In  our  endeavors,  however,  to  arrive  at  the  true  sense  of  anj'  passage  h; 
Scripture,  it  would  be  prejudging  the  matter  to  take  for  granted  tliat  that 
sense  cannot  be  repugnant  to  reason ;  for,  tliough  tlie  supernatural  revela- 
tions which  are  contained  in  the  sacred  books  never  can  contradict  the 
judgments  formed  by  a  right  use  of  the  intellectual  powere,  there  is  no  evi- 
dence for  the  dogma  that  all  portions  of  Scripture  were  given  by  infallible 
inspiration.  Our  sole  object  should  therefore  be  merely  to  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  a  sacred  author,  without  assuming  the  foregone  conclusion  that 
it  is  impossible  for  him  to  err,  to  express  a  doctrine  contrary  to  reason,  or 
to  be  inconsistent  with  the  views  of  such  other  writers  as  have  had  better 
opportunities  of  arriving  at  the  truth,  either  by  natural  or  supernatural 
means.  If,  after  an  investigation  pursued  in  no  spirit  of  reckless  scepticism, 
but  with  a  manly  freedom  blended  with  caution  and  docility,  a  passage 
should  be  found  manifestly  opposed  to  the  highest  and  best  conceptions  of 
our  minds,  we  may,  from  the  known  character  and  sentiments  of  the  author 
in  whose  compositions  it  appears,  have  some  grounds,  even  without  the 
authority  of  any  extant  manuscript,  for  believing  the  text  of  that  passage 
to  be  corrupt  or  interpolated;  but,  if  faithful  to  the  duty  of  using  ariglit 
the  natural  gifts  bestowed  on  us  by  Heaven,  we  cannot  accept,  as  a  decla- 
ration of  the  divine  will,  the  doctrine  which  it  expresses. 

Suppose,  for  instance,  that  a  man  has  been  led,  by  the  united  voices  of 
reason  and  revelation,  —  by  the  light  of  nature  and  the  whole  spirit  of  Chris 
tianity,  —  to  believe  that  it  is  the  design  of  the  Creator  and  Father  of  tlie 
human  race  to  bring  each  and  all  of  his  children  into  the  fold  of  the  Saviour, 
through  such  trials  and  sufferings  as  are  best  adapted  to  purify  and  exalt 
their  nature;  and  suppose,  too,  he  find  §ome  passages  in  the  Bible  unequi- 
vocally declaring  or  implying  the  doctrine  of  unmitigated  torture  to  nmlti- 
tudes  througliont  eternity, —  he  must  not  bend  or  distort  the  language  so  as 
to  make  it  speak  his  own  sentiments,  though,  according  to  the  suj)p(>sition, 
these  are  founded  on  a  solid  bas's.  We  say,  "  unequivocally  declaring  or 
implying;  "  for,  if  the  passages  be  merely  ambiguous  or  obscure,  they  can- 
not justly  be  regarded  as  erroneous;  or,  if  highly  figurative,  they  may  fail 
to  give  the  precise  doctrinal  views  of  the  writer;  but  they  are  not  neces- 
sarily oi)posed  to  I'eason,  and  may  admit  an  interpretation  which  is  both 
rational  and  consistent  with  the  writer's  ojnnions  as  clearl}'  expresseil  in 
other  places  of  his  compositions. 

In  this  sejitiment,  that  no  proposition,  repugnant  to  reason,  though  it 
were  found  in  books  containing  God's  revealed  will,  is  entitled  to  credence, 
we  are  supported,  more  or  less,  by  the  authority  of  eminent  Trinitarians 
Thus  S.  T.  CoLKiuiMiK,  in  Literary  Hemains  (Works,  vol.  y.  j>p.  103-4),  says* 
"  If  we  are  quite  certain  that  any  writing  pretending  to  divine  origin  con 
tains  gross  contradictions  to  demonstrable  truths  in  e<x/e;«  r/tne/'e,  or  cum 
mands  that  outrage  the  clearest  principles  of  right  ami  wrong,  then  we  may 
be  equally  certain  that  the  pretence  is  a  blasphemous  fals-eliood;  inasmuch 
as  the  compatd)ility  of  a  document  with  the  conclusions  of  self-avidcnt 
reason,  and  with  the  laws  of  conscience,  is  a  con<iition  d prioi-i  of  any  evi- 
dence adequate  to  the  proof  of  its  having  been  revealed  by  God." 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION.  225 

Thus,  also,  Dr.  South,  in  pp.  133-4  of  his  Animadversions  on  Sherlock's 
Vindication,  asks  the  Dean  "  whether  it  be  a  proposition  true  in  natural 
reason,  that  God  is  one  infinite  mind  or  spirit;"  and  says,  that,  if  this  be 
granted,  the  doctrine  that  God  is  three  infinite  minds  or  spirits  cannot  bo 
proved  true  from  revelation,  "  since  the  certain  truth  of  the  first  proposition 
supposed  and  admitted  must  needs  disprove  the  truth  of  that  revelation 
which  pretends  to  establish  the  second.  ...  If  it  be  certainly  true  from 
reason  that  God  is  one  infinite  mind  or  spirit,  no  revelation  can  or  ought  to 
be  pleaded  that  he  is  three  distinct  infinite  minds  or  spirits." 

We  do  not,  however,  believe  that,  as  to  the  nature  and  character  of  the 
Divine  Being,  there  are  any  contradictions  to  reason  found  in  the  New 
Testament.  We  have  no  doubt  that  the  evangelists  and  apostles  all  agree 
in  recognizing  the  strict  Oneness  of  God,  —  the  essential  and  unqualified 
Supremacy  of  the  heavenly  Father;  a  doctrine  as  rational  as  it  is  sublime. 
But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  dogma  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity  were  certainly 
taught  by  any  of  the  sacred  writers,  we  should  feel,  that,  however  repulsive 
it  might  seem  to  reason  and  common  sense,  we  had  no  right,  as  interpreters, 
to  carry  our  own  notions  into  Scripture,  and  to  rationalize  its  absurdities. 

[9]  No  doctrine  can  belong  to  the  analogy  of  faith  which  is  founded 
on  a  single  text ;  for  every  essential  principle  of  religion  is  delivered 
in  more  than  one  place.  —  Dr.  Gilbert  Geil\rd  :  Institutes,  §  503. 

T.  H.  HoRNE  (i.  343),  having  defined  the  analogy  of  faith  to  be  "  the  con 
stant  and  perpetual  harmony  of  Scripture  in  the  fundamental  points  of  faith 
and  practice,"  lays  down  the  same  canon  as  that  given  by  Dr.  Gerard. 

Bishop  Hampuen  (in  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  55)  says  emphatically  that 
"  there  must  be,  in  fact,  a  repeated  revelation  to  authorize  us  to  assert  that 
this  or  that  conclusion  represents  to  us  some  truth  concerning  God." 

S.  F.  N.  Mouus,  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Style  of  the  New  Testament 
(Biblical  Repository,  vol.  i.  p.  430),  makes  the  following  sensible  remarks 
ou  this  rule  of  interpretation:  "  The  analogy  of  faith  and  doctrine  is  con- 
tained in  the  principal  maxims  and  precepts  of  religion  clearly  taught. 
This  is,  as  I  understand  it,  a  summary  of  all  religious  doctrine;  for  if  such 
evident  propositions  as  that  God  is  one,  that  he  created  the  world,  that  ho 
governs  all  things,  that  he  reforms  us  by  his  truth,  and  tliat  there  is  a  future 
state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  be  collected,  they  will  constitute  a  sum- 
mary )f  religion;  and  this  constitutes  the  standard  according  to  which 
svery  thing  must  be  interpreted,  so  that  all  shall  harmonize.  It  is  wrong  to 
make  this  analogy  consist  in  the  doctrines  approved  by  any  one  sect,  as  the 
Lutherans,  Calvinists,  or  Papists;  for  then  there  would  be  many  analogies: 
each  sect  would  hold  up  its  own  religious  system  as  the  standard.  The 
system  of  no  sect  can  ever  become  the  law  of  interpretation;  for  this  refers 
to  the  plain  and  evident  testimony  of  Scripture.  Nor  does  the  analogy  of 
doctrine  consist  in  the  system  of  any  particular  person ;  for  these  systems 
are  disposed  in  order,  and  the  doctrine  explained  in  a  maimer  merely  to  suit 
the  authors.     Such  systems  cauuot  be  made  a  rule  of  iuterpretatiou  " 


22G  BIBUCAI,   INTERPRETATION. 


GENERAL   REMARKS. 


Could  they  who  dogmatize  on  sacred  suhjects  j)crempt()ril}-,  be 
persuaded  to  examine  them  carefully,  we  might  soon  bring  to  an  issue 
those  unhappy  disputes  about  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  which, 
though  started  perhaps  with  honest  intentions,  have  yet  been  carried 
on  with  a  most  unchristian  temper.  .  ,  .  By  examination  I  do  not 
mean  the  rapid  effusion  of  scriptural  phrases,  which  it  is  far  easier  to 
accumuhte  than  to  connect ;  which  those  who  dispLiy  most  ostenta- 
tiously do  not  always  explain  most  intelligibly ;  and  in  the  re])ctition 
of  which  it  is  possible  for  the  understanding  to  slumber,  while  the 
memory  is  exercised,  and  the  fancy  captivated.  But,  in  the  investiga- 
tion of  doctrines  on  which  eternity  is  suspended,  it  is  necessary  to 
trace  every  word  through  its  significations,  whether  primary  or  sub- 
ordinate, common  or  approjjriate ;  to  analyze  every  sentence  into  its 
component  jjarts ;  to  mark  the  connection  of  those  parts  to  each  otlier, 
and  the  relation  of  the  whole  to  preceding  or  subsequent  i)assages;  to 
account  for  local  and  temporary  circumstances;  to  bear  in  mind  on 
what  occasion  any  doctrine  is  introduced,  and  to  what  persons  it  is 
addressed ;  to  determine  ambiguous  texts  by  such  as  are  more  defi- 
nite, —  the  obscure  by  such  as  are  plain ;  to  support  general  doctrines 
by  ])articular  proofs,  not  with  the  Ucentiousness  of  arbitrary  assump- 
tion, but  the  calmness  and  precision  of  elaborate  induction  ;  not  to  be 
staggered  by  accidentiil  ditticidties,  the  solution  of  which  progressive 
knowledge  or  persevering  industry  may  supply ;  never  to  be  seduced 
by  indirect  or  jnrtial  exjjrcssions  into  a  desertion  of  those  leading, 
indis])utiible  truths  on  which  revelation  is  known  to  hinge.  —  Dr. 
Samuiol  Parr.  :  Sennons  07i  Faith  and  Morals ;  in  IVorks,  voL  \\. 
pp.  61G-17. 


The  principles  of  interpreting  Scripture  which  we  have  qnnted  nre  taken 
fi'dni  writers  of  eminent  merit  belonfjinp;  to  the  orthodox  body,  nnd  will 
probiibly  be  regarded  by  all  Protestants,  worthy  of  the  name,  as  substan- 
tially correct,  whatever  notions  they  may  hold  respecting  tlie  inspiration  of 
the  Bible,  and  the  canonicity  of  its  various  books.  Their  bearing  on  the 
great  question  at  issue  between  Trinitarians,  and  the  believers  in  the  simi)le 
oneness  of  the  Divine  Being,  will  often  be  noticed  in  the  succeeding  volumes 
of  this  work.  In  attempting  to  apply  them,  may  both  writei'  and  reader  be 
pervaded  by  a  single-minded  desire  to  ascertain  the  truth! 


227 


CHAPTER   IV. 

CHRISTIANITY  INTELLIGIBLE,  RATIONAL,  AND   PRACTICAL. 


SECT.    I.  —  THE    TEACHINGS    OF    THE    SAVIOUR   DISTINGUISHliD    FOR 
THEIR  CLEARNESS  AND   SIMPLICITY. 

All  the  doctrine  which  Christ  taught  and  gave 
Was  clear  as  heaven  from  whence  it  came. 

OEoaoE  Herbert. 

In  many  of  the  quotations  introduced  into  tlie  preceding  chapter,  the  duty 
of  tasking,  to  the  utmost  extent,  the  faculties  of  the  human  understand- 
ing in  the  study  and  interpretation  of  Holy  Scripture,  is  strongly  urged 
on  the  attention  of  Christians;  and  rules  and  directions  are  given  for  the 
purpose  of  facilitating  inquiry,  of  guarding  against  error,  and  of  leading  to 
the  possession  of  truth.  All  this  implies,  tliat  the  Bible  is  not  to  be  regarded 
as  a  volume  which  "  he  who  runneth  may  read,"  —  which  one  may  hastily 
or  passively  peruse,  and  at  the  same  time  perfectly  understand;  but  as  a 
collection  of  sacred  books,  for  the  due  appreciation  of  which,  and  for  tb« 
comprehension  of  its  various  and  important  contents,  our  intellectual  powers 
and  our  moral  affections  should  alike  be  devoted.  Indeed,  apart  from  tlie 
value  of  the  facts  it  records,  or  the  principles  it  develops,  no  book  requires 
more  assiduous  and  patient  study  to  understand  than  the  Bible;  for  there  is 
none  perhaps  which  as  a  whole  is  so  hard,  difficult,  or  obscure. 

The  documents  of  which  it  consists  are  very  ancient,  some  of  them  the 
oldest  of  extant  compositions.  They  were  written  in  languages  or  in  dialects 
which  have  long  ceased  to  be  spoken,  and  with  which  the  best  educated  men 
are  but  imperfectly  familiar.  They  abound  in  allusions  to  customs,  man- 
ners, opinions,  and  modes  of  thought,  which  are  very  different  from  those 
which  prevail  at  the  present  day  in  Western  Europe  and  in  the  New  World. 
They  have  been  more  or  less  corrupted  in  their  passage  to  our  times.  Tliey 
have  been  transferred  into  innumerable  versions,  all  differing  one  from 
another  in  a  vast  variety  of  particulars.  They  have  been  commented  oil 
by  fathers,  by  schoolmen,  by  priests,  and  by  critics;  by  adlierents  of  thf 
Romish,  Greek,  and  Protestant  churches;  by  Atlianasiaus  and  Arians^ 
Sabellians  and  Socinians,  Lutherans  and  Calvinists;  by  fanatics,  ranters, 
rationalists,  and  trauscendentalists ;  and,  widely  as  these  disagree  in  opinion, 


228  DIFFICDLTIES  OF  THE  BIDLE. 

they  have  lent  to  eiich  and  all  of  them  such  real  or  apparent  support  as  hath 
sufficed  1o  satisfy  the  coni^ciences  and  the  minds  of  them  all.  However 
some  Protestants,  in  their  zeal  against  Popery,  may  allect  to  controvert  the 
fact,  a  book  from  which  such  a  variety  of  conflicting  opinions  as  those  held 
by  these  sectaries  has  been  professedly  taken,  must  be  difficult  to  under- 
stand. It  would  be  idle  to  deny  it.  Even  persons  who  are  classed  under 
the  same  category  have  elicited,  from  the  Bible,  dogmas  which  are  far  from 
being  the  same.  Neither  the  philosophers  who  h:ive  found  in  the  Scriptures 
the  truths  of  astronomy  and  geology,  or  of  moral  and  mental  science;  nor  the 
mystics,  with  their  doctrine  of  a  double  sense,  their  correspondences,  their 
spiritual  influences,  their  reveries,  and  their  dreams,  are  at  one  in  their 
res|)ective'  interpretations  of  the  contents  of  the  Bible.  The  first  chapter 
of  Genesis,  so  simple  in  phraseology  and  so  sublime  in  conception,  will.  \f 
we  judge  of  the  future  from  the  past,  never  be  so  explained  as  to  meet  the 
unanimous  consent  of  astronomers,  geologists,  and  theologians.  The  precise 
boundary  between  the  myths  and  the  histories  of  the  Hebrews  h:is  not  yet 
been  ascertained,  and  perhaps  never  will  be.  The  prophecies  of  the  Jewish 
bards,  obscure  to  those  who  uttered  them,  have  not  been  rendered  altogether 
clear  by  the  light  of  facts  accomplished;  and  a  portion  of  doubt  and  mys- 
tery may  still  hang  over  them.  No  Harmony  has  harmonized,  or  probably 
ever  will  harmonize,  the  discrepancies  existing  in  the  divine  and  truthful 
Gospels.  The  proem  to  John's  beautiful  narrative  of  the  Saviour,  for  the 
comprehension  of  which  such  vast  stores  of  ancient  learning  have  been  iu 
countless  modes  ransacked  and  displayed,  and  from  which  have  been  de- 
rived  opinions  the  tnost  varied  in  hue  and  texture,  may  never  find  a  solution 
which  will  be  altogether  satisfactory  to  the  scholar  and  tlie  Christian.  The 
Epistles  of  Paul  —  "  in  which  are  some  things  hard  to  be  understood,  which 
they  that  are  unlearned  and  unstable  wrest,  as  they  do  also  the  other  Scrip- 
tures, unto  their  own  destruction  "  —  have  been  made  to  speak  the  strangest, 
the  most  uncouth  and  contradictory  dogmas;  and  the  man  is  yet  to  come 
who  will  give  such  a  representation  of  the  apostle's  views  as  will  settle 
the  controversies  which  have  so  long  afflicted  the  church.  The  contents 
of  the  Apocalypse,  which  have  so  often  baffled  the  prying  ingenuity  of  good 
and  wise  men,  may  be  fully  revealed  to  the  human  mind  only  wheu  "  time 
shall  be  no  more." 

Some  of  these,  or  similar  ditliculties  and  obscurities,  may,  as  we  have 
intimated,  remain  for  ever  on  the  pages  of  the  Bible;  but  there  are  others 
which  have  undoubtedly  arisen  more  from  the  prepossessions  and  the  pas- 
sions of  interpreters  than  from  any  imperfection  in  the  book  itself;  and  it 
may  reasonably  be  anticipated  that  a  reduction  of  their  number  will  bo 
gradually  elVected  by  the  labors  of  ingenuous  and  liberal-minded  men. 

But,  even  now,  the  Bible  is  not,  throughout  its  various  portions,  a  book 
only  of  dark  and  intricate  i)assages  leading  to  no  certain  conclusion.  It 
abounds  in  narratives,  whose  beautiful  simplicity  and  tender  pathos  are 
grateful  to  the  ear  of  childhood;  in  pictures  of  divine  heroism  and  disin- 
terestedness which  arrest  the  eye  of  youth;  in  songs  of  purity  and  piety 
which  lift  to  higher  realms  the  common  mind  of  manhood ;   iu  words  of 


SIMPLICITY   Of   OL'K   LORDS   TEACHINGS.  229 

comfort  and  consdlation  which  impart  heavenly  strength  and  holy  trust  to 
the  heart  of  feebleness  and  age. 

The  Bible  is  a  ditScult  book;  or,  rather,  it  is  a  collection  of  books, 
portions  of  which  are  very  dark  and  doubtful  in  their  import,  if  not  erro- 
neous in  some  of  their  statements.  But  it  contains  various  revelations  of 
the  Supreme  Wisdom  and  Infinite  Goodness;  and  all  revelations  must,  to 
those  for  whom  they  were  intended,  be,  from  their  very  nature,  resplendent 
with  light,  and  impart  it  to  the  organ  of  moral  and  intellectual  vision  if  in  a 
normal  or  undiseased  state.  Clouds  and  darkness  may  seem  to  us,  in^some 
measure,  to  brood  over  the  communications  of  God  to  the  antediluvians 
and  tlie  patriarchs, —  for  these  were  personal  or  family  revelations;  or  over 
such  as  were  vouchsafed  to  the  Jews  through  Moses  and  the  prophets,  —  for 
these  were  national ;  though  jnany  of  them  speak,  in  characters  the  most 
perspicuous,  of  the  pure  spirituality,  the  impartial  justice,  and  universal 
government  of  the  one  Jehovah. 

But  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ — including  in  the  term  not  only  the 
teachings  of  the  Saviour,  but  his  life  and  his  character,  his  labors  and  his 
sufierings,  his  death  and  his  resurrection  —  was  a  revelation,  designed,  not 
for  particular  persons  or  families,  or  for  a  peculiar  nation,  but  for  all  man- 
kind; and  the  impress  of  universality  and  legibility  are  therefore  stamped 
on  its  divine  lineaments.  By  a  few  simple  strokes  from  the  pens  of  the 
evangelists,  Jesus  is  still  seen,  as  he  was  some  eighteen  or  nineteen  hundred 
years  ago,  walking  on  the  hills  and  the  plains,  or  by  the  rivers  and  the 
lakes,  of  Palestine;  mixing  with  his  countrymen  in  their  lofty  temple  and 
humbler  synagogues,  in  their  cities  and  villages,  in  their  streets  and  roads, 
in  their  houses  and  in  their  fishing-boats;  familiar  with  seamen,  with  publi- 
cans, with  the  erring  and  abandoned,  with  the  pious  and  the  gentle-hearted ; 
teihng  them,  in  no  equivocal  terms,  of  the  care  and  providence  of  their  all- 
bountiful  Father,  of  their  solemn  responsibleness  to  God  for  aH,they  think 
and  feel  and  say  and  do,  and  of  their  various  duties  to  themselves  and  their 
brethren  of  mankind ;  speaking  words  of  comfort  and  hope  to  the  penitent, 
but  of  warning  and  woe  to  the  self-righteous;  imparting  health  and  energy 
and  life  to  the  sick,  the  feeble,  the  dying,  and  the  dead;  and  pronouncing 
benedictions  on.  little  children,  on  the  humble-minded,  on  the  mourners,  ou 
the  meek,  on  the  hungerers  and  thirsters  after  righteousness,  on  the  merciful, 
on  the  pure  iu  heart,  and  on  those  who  suf!'er  for  the  name  of  Christ.  We 
see  this  good  being  murdered  for  his  goodness  by  the  proud  priests  of  his 
nation.  We  see  his  body  taken  from  the  cruel  cross,  put  into  a  tomb,  and 
in  a  few  hours  rising  again  with  renewed  life.  We  see  him,  "  from  the 
mount  called  Olivet,"  ascending  to  that  Being  who  commissioned  him,  and 
leaving,  as  a  sacred  legacy,  tlie  image  and  remembrances  of  himself,  and  tli« 
spirit  of  his  benign  religion,  not  to  the  narrow-minded  Jews,  but  to  the  world 
at  large.  This  great  I{evealer  of  the  will  of  God  —  this  best  Representative 
and  Manifestation  of  Immortal  Goodness  —  spoke  not,  indeed,  in  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  or  in  any  other  modern  tongue,  but  in  the  now-obsolete  Syro-Chaldaic; 
yet  its  translated  tones  of  love  and  righteousness  sound  on  the  ear,  and 
address  the  heart,  of  our  commcu  humaui'y.    Though  he  wore  a  Jewish 

20 


230  SIMPLICITY   OF  OUR   LORDS   TEACUINGS. 

garb,  aliuded  to  local  and  temporary  usages,  accommodated  his  words  to 
uiipliilosophical  ideas,  and  spoke  in  Oriental  parables  and  paradoxes,  he 
stands  before  us,  in  the  pages  of  the  simple  evangelists,  as  the  clearest 
expounder  of  God's  messages  and  the  most  perfect  teacher  of  eternal  truth. 
No  corruption  of  the  Greek  text,  and  no  false  rendering,  have  obscured,  or 
can  obscure,  the  import  of  the  term  "  Father,"  which,  with  so  profound  yet 
so  clear  and  expressive  a  meaning,  Jesus  applied  to  God  in  his  discourses; 
■which  he  uttered  in  his  prayers  and  in  his  thanksgivings;  and  which  he 
taught  his  disciples  to  use  in  their  dailj'  petitions  to  Heaven.  It  contains 
■within  itself  a  universal  revelation,  —  a  revelation  intelligible  to  the  capaci- 
ties of  the  human  mind  and  to  the  allections  of  the  human  heart  in  all  stages 
of  development,  and  growing  more  significant  and  luminous  as  men  and 
women  advance  in  the  scale  of  intelligence,  virtue,  and  holiness. 

It  would  be  easy  to  pursue  the  same  strain  of  remark,  by  exhibiting  tlie 
perspicuity  and  the  practicability  of  other  principles  which  our  Lord  taught 
and  exemplified;  and  by  showing  that  he  avoided  the  presentation  and 
discussion  of  topics,  which,  from  their  inherent  obscurity  or  mysteriousness, 
could  not  generally  be  understood,  or  be  brought  home  to  the  minds  and 
hearts  of  all  men.  But  the  sentiments  of  eminent  Trinitarians  on  this  sub- 
ject, -ivhich  we  are  about  to  introduce,  will  render  any  further  observatioua 
on  our  part  unnecessary. 


He  delighted  not  to  discourse  of  sublime  mysteries  (although  his 
deep  wisdom  comprehended  them  all),  nor  of  subtle  speculations  and 
intric;xte  questions,  such  as  might  amuse  and  perplex  rather  than 
instruct  and  profit  his  autlitors,  but  usually  did  I'eed  his  auditors  with 
the  most  common  and  useful  truths,  and  that  in  the  most  familiar  and 
intelligible"  languiige.  —  Dii.  Isaac  Bauuow:  IVorks,  voL  i.  p.  404. 

Surely,  the  way  to  heaven,  that  Christ  hath  taught  us,  is  plain  and 
easy,  if  we  have  but  honest  hearts :  we  need  not  many  criticisms,  many 
school  distinctions,  to  come  to  a  right  underst;inding  of  it.  Surely, 
Christ  came  not  to  ensnare  us  and  ontiingle  us  with  &iptious  niceties, 
or  to  puzzle  our  heads  with  deep  si)eculations,  and  lead  us  through 
hard  and  craggy  notions  into  tlie  kingdom  of  heaven.  I  persuade 
myself  that  no  man  shall  ever  be  kept  out  of  heaven  for  not  compre- 
hending mysteries,  that  were  beyond  the  reach  of  his  shallow  under- 
stiinding,  if  he  had  but  an  honest  and  good  heart,  tkxt  was  ready  to 
comply  with  Christ's  commandments.  "  Say  not  in  thy  heart,  Who 
sliidl  ascend  into  heaven  P  "  that  is,  with  high  speculations  to  bring 
down  Christ  from  thence  ;  or,  "  Who  shall  descend  into  the  abyss 
beneath?"  that  is,  with  decjj-seiu-ching  thoughts  to  felcli  uj)  Christ 
from  thence ;  but,  lo !  "  the  word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in  thy  mouth  and 
in  thy  he.irt "  ....  I  speak  not  here  agcunst  a  free  and  ingenuous 


SIMPLICITY  OF   OUR  LORDS   TEACHINGS.  231 

iiiquiry  into  all  truth,  according  to  our  several  abilities  and  opportuni- 
ties. I  plead  not  for  the  captivating  and  enthralling  of  our  judgments 
to  the  dictates  of  men.  I  do  not  disparage  the  natural  improvement 
of  our  understanding  ficulties  by  true  knowledge,  which  is  so  noble 
and  gallant  a  perfection  of  the  mind.  But  the  thing  which  I  aim 
against  is  the  dispiriting  of  the  life  and  vigor  of  our  religion  by  dry 
speculations,  and  making  it  nothing  but  a  mere  dead  skeleton  of  o]n- 
nions,  —  a  few  dry  bones,  without  any  flesh  and  sinews,  tied  up 
together ;  and  the  misplacing  of  all  our  zeal  upon  an  eager  prosecution 
of  these,  which  should  be  spent  to  better  purpose  upon  other  objects.  — 
Dr.  Ralph  Cudworth:  Sermon  1,  appended  to  Inielledual  System 
of  the  Universe,  vol.  ii.  pp.  554,  556. 

The  Lord  Jesus,  in  wisdom  and  tender  mercy,  established  a  law  of 
grace,  and  rule  of  hfe,  pure  and  perfect,  but  simple  and  plain ;  lajing 
the  condition  of  man's  salvation  more  in  the  honesty  of  the  believing 
heart  than  in  the  strength  of  wit,  and  subtlety  of  a  knowing  head. 
He  comprised  the  truths  which  were  of  necessity  to  salvation  in  a 
narrow  I'oom ;  so  that  the  Christian  faith  was  a  matter  of  great  plain- 
ness and  simplicity.  .  .  .  By  the  occasion  of  heretics'  quarrel  and 
errors,  the  serpent  steps  in,  and  will  needs  be  a  spirit  of  zeal  in  the 
church;  and  he  will  so  overdo  against  heretics,  that  he  persuades 
them  they  must  enlarge  their  creed,  and  add  this  clause  against  one, 
and  that  against  another,  and  all  was  but  for  the  perfecting  and  pre- 
sernng  of  the  Christian  fiith.  .  .  .  He  had  got  them,  with  a  reHgious, 
zealous  cruelty  to  their  owii  and  others'  souls,  to  lay  all  their  salvation, 
and  the  peace  of  the  church,  upon  some  unsearchable  mysteries  about 
the  Trinity,  which  God  either  never  revealed,  or  never  clearly  revealed, 
or  never  laid  so  great  a  stress  ujjon.  Yet  he  per'suades  them,  that 
there  was  Scripture-jn-oof  enough  for  these ;  only  the  Scripture  spoke 
it  but  in  the  premises  or  in  darker  terms,  and  they  must  but  gatlicr 
into  their  creed  the  consequences,  and  put  it  into  plainer  expressions, 
which  heretics  might  not  so  easily  corrupt,  pervert,  or  evade.  — 
Richard  Baxter  :  T%e  Right  Method ;  in  Practical  Works,  vol.  ix. 
pp.  192-3. 

Of  the  divine  Founder  of  our  religion,  it  is  impossible  to  peruse 
the  evangeUcal  histories,  without  observing  how  little  ke  favored  the 
vanity  of  inquisitiveness ;  how  much  more  rarely  he  condescended  to 
satisfv  curiosity  than  to  relieve  distress ;  and  how  much  he  desired  that 
his  followers  should  rather  excel  in  goodness  than  in  knowledge.  — 
])r,  Samuel  Johxson*  Rambler,  No.  81. 


S32  SIMPLICITY   OF   OUK   LORDS   TEACUINQS 

Christianity  is  a  religion  intended  for  general  use :  it  appeals  to  the 
coninion  feelings  of  our  natiu-e,  and  never  cbshes  with  the  unl)iased 
dictxtes  of  our  reason.  We  may  therefore  rank  it  among  the  bene- 
ficial tendencies,  as  well  as  the  peculiar  evidences,  of  such  a  religion, 
that  the  Author  of  it  abstained  from  all  abstruse  speculations,  &c.  — 
L)K.  Samlel  Parr  :  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  507. 

Wliile  Jesus  requires  us  to  believe  in  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Sjjirit,  he  has  nowhere  taught  us  or  required  us  to  beheve  the  learned 
distinctions  resjjecting  this  doctrine  which  have  been  introduced 
since  the  fourth  centuiy.  The  undeserved  benefits  which  they  'had 
received  from  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  were  the  great  subjects  to 
which  Jesus  pointed  his  followers  in  the  passage  above  cited  [Matt. 
xxviiL  19],  and  in  others;  that  they  were  now  able  to  understiind  and 
worsliip  God  in  a  more  perfect  manner,  to  approach  him  as  their 
Father  and  Benefactor  in  spu'it  and  in  truth ;  that  their  minds  were 
now  enhghtened  by  the  instructions  given  them  by  the  Son  of  God, 
who  Imd  been  sent  into  the  world  to  be  their  Teacher,  and  that  their 
souls  were  redeemed  by  his  death ;  that,  in  consequence  of  what  Christ 
liad  alreadj-  done  and  would  yet  do,  they  might  be  adv;uiced  in  moral 
perfection,  and  made  holy,  —  a  work,  specially  ascribed  to  the  aids  and 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  .  .  .  He  did  not  reveal  this  doctrine  to  men 
to  fm'iiish  them  with  matter  for  speculation  and  dispute,  and  did  not, 
therefore,  prescribe  any  formulas  by  which  the  one  or  the  other  could 
have  been  excited.  —  G.  C.  Knapp  :  Christ.  TVieol.,  sect,  xxxiii.  2. 

Jesus  is  not  the  author  of  a  dogmatic  theology,  but  the  author  and 
finisher  of  faith,  Heb.  xii.  2 ;  not  the  founder  of  a  school,  but  empha- 
ticidly  the  founder  of  religion  and  of  the  cluu-ch.  On  this  account  he 
did  not  pi'opound  dogmas  dressed  in  a  scientific  garb ;  but  he  taught 
the  word  of  God  in  a  simply  human  and  populiir  manner,  for  the  most 
part  in  parables  and  sentences.  —  K.  R.  Hagenbach  :  Compendium 
of  the  History  of  Doctrines,  vol.  i.  §  17. 

There  is  something  most  highly  interesting  and  instructive  in  the 
maimer  in  which  the  S-aviour  adapted  his  commimi&itions  to  the  ocai- 
sions  on  which  they  were  to  be  made,  and  to  the  purposes  which  he 
endeavored  to  effect  by  them.  A  motlern  preacher  would  liave  c;u-riod 
the  metaphysics  of  theology  all  over  the  villages  of  Galilee,  and  would 
have  puzzled  the  woman  of  Samaria,  or  the  inquiring  ruler,  with  ques- 
tions about  the  nature  of  the  Godhead,  or  the  distinction  between 
moral  and  natural  inability.  But  Jesus  Christ  pressed  simple  duty. 
The  two  great  element;iry  principles  of  religion  ai'e  these,  — 


SIMPLICITY   OF   OUR  LORD'S  TEACHINGS.  2o5 

th:  duty  of  strong  benevolent  interest  in  every  fellow-being,  and  of 
STibmission  and  gratitude  towards  the  Supreme.  Jesus  Christ  has 
said,  that  these  constitute  the  foundation  on  which  all  revealed  religion 
rests.  —  Jacob  Abbott  :  T%e  Corner-stone,  pp.  187,  339. 

Christ  was  the  divinest  of  theologians,  because  he  taught  not  in 
abstraction,  but  exemplification;  not  in  dogmas  merely,  but  deeds; 
in  the  ardor  of  liis  heart,  as  well  as  the  energy  of  his  mind ;  in  the 
gentleness  of  his  demeanor,  and  the  beneficent  industry  of  his  life. 

His  ambition  was  to  teach,  not  so  much  the  new  as  the  true, 

and  the  true  not  as  a  logical  formula  or  dogmatical  proposition,  but  as 
a  transparent  and  comprehensive  religious  sentiment,  enlightening  the 
conscience,  spirituaHzing  the  heart,  elevating  the  soul,  and  regenerating 
the  entire  family  of  man,  as  it  swept  outward  with  infinite  expansive- 

ness  to  embrace  the  world. He  knew  that  the  fundamental 

principles  of  religion  which  he  taught  lay  so  near  to  the  reason  and 
conscience  of  mankind,  that  they  needed  only  to  have  their  attention 
directed  towards  them,  in  order  to  secm-e  assent.  For  this  reason, 
Jesus  delivered  his  instructions  with  such  a  clearness  and  simplicity, 
such  an  energy  and  power,  that  they  commended  themselves  imme- 
diately to  eveiy  ingenuous  heart.  .  .  .  He  reaUzed,  in  the  presence  of 
the  human  race,  an  ideal  of  human  perfection  level  to  popular  com- 
prehension and  within  the  reach  of  all.  In  his  person,  his  demeanor, 
and  his  speech,  the  world  saw  the  mfinite  brought  down  to  our  stand- 
ard, so  realized  that  we  can  easily  imderstand  it,  and  feel  the  majesty 
and  loeauty  of  that  love  to  Christ  which  is  nothing  but  the  imitiition 
of  God  brought  near  to  the  roused  intellect  and  heart.  .  .  .  The  doc- 
ti'ines  of  Christ  were  at  the  same  time  the  most  practical  and  profound. 
His  precepts  were  level  to  the  capacities  of  a  cliild,  and  yet  they  con- 
tained principles  which  the  most  matured  and  soaring  intellect  could 

never  outrun By  the  representation  which  Jesus  gave  of  the 

doctrine  of  the  one  only  and  Supreme  God,  and  of  the  nature  of 
acceptilile  worship,  very  imporfcint  objects  were  to  be  accomplished. 
He  exhibited  true  religion  with  such  clearness  and  simplicity,  that 
those  of  the  humblest  capacities,  even  children,  might  comprehend 
it.  .  .  .  Christ  Avould  teach  man,  tbit  there  is  no  spiritual  progi-ess  for 
him  till  he  discovers  that  truth  is  as  much  a  thing  to  be  felt  as  a  thing 
to  be  perceived ;  and  that  it  is  only  a  very  small  portion  of  truth  that 
the  philosopher's  analysis,  the  logician's  syllogisms,  theological  dogmas, 
and  sectarian  creeds,  cm\  impart  to  the  immortal  soul.  —  E.  L.  MvGOON : 
Republican  Christianity,  pp.  58,  93,  97-9,  240-1. 

20* 


234  INTELLiaiBILITY  OF  CHEISTIAN  PPINCIPLES. 


BECT.    n.    —  THE    PRIXCIPLES    OF    CIIRISTIAMTY    SUITABLE    TO    ALL 
CAPACITIES. 

My  p-acious  God,  how  plain 
Are  thy  directions  given  1 
Oh,  may  1  never  read  in  vain, 
But  find  the  path  to  heaven ! 

Isaac  Watts. 

All  things  ^n  Scripture  are  not  alike  plain  in  themselves,  nor  alike 
>tear  unto  all;  yet  those  things  wliich  are  necessarj'  to  be  known, 
oeiieved,  and  observed  for  salvation,  are  so  clearly  propounded  and 
opened  in  some  place  of  Scripture  or  other,  that  not  only  the  learned, 
but  the  unlearned,  in  a  due  use  of  the  ordinaiy  means,  may  attain 
unto  a  sufficient  understanding  of  them.  —  "WESTiilxsTEli  Divines  : 
Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  i.  7. 

The  Christian  religion  is,  as  GREGORY  Nazianzen  says,  simplex  et 
nuda,  nisi  prave  in  artem  difficilliviam  converterdur :  it  is  a  plain,  an 
easy,  a  perspicuous  truth.  —  John  Dokne  :  Sermons,  No.  VIL 

S.  T.  CoLERinGE,  by  whom  we  borrow  this  extract,  beautifully  says  in 
his  note  on  it  (Literary  Remains,  in  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  90),  that  "  a  religion 
of  ideas,  spiritual  truths,  or  truth-powers,  —  not  of  notions  and  conceptions, 
the  manufacture  of  the  understanding,  —  is  therefore  simjjlex  et  nuda,  that 
is,  immediate ;  like  the  clear  blue  heaven  of  Italy,  deep  and  transparent,  an 
ocean  unTatliomable  in  its  depth,  and  yet  ground  all  the  way."  Seeing, 
however,  that  the  representation  of  Christianity  as  a  religion  which  may 
easily  be  understood  by  all  will  naturally  lead  to  Unitarianism,  Cdi-khidge 
exclaims,  "  Oh,  let  not  the  simplex  el  nuda  of  Gregory  be  perverted  to  the 
Socinian,  '  plain  and  easy  for  the  meanest  understandings  ' !  " 

Because  [the]  Christian  religion  was  intended  and  instituted  for 
the  good  of  mankind,  whether  poor  or  rich,  learned  or  unlearned, 
simple  or  prudent,  wise  or  weak,  it  was  fitted  witli  such  ])lain,  easy, 
and  evident  directions,  both  for  things  to  be  known  and  things  to  be 
done,  in  order  to  the  attiinment  of  tlie  end  for  whicli  it  was  designed, 
that  might  be  understood  by  any  cajjacity  that  had  the  ordinary  and 
common  use  of  reason  or  human  undcrsUuuling,  and  by  the  common 
assistance  of  the  divine  grace  might  be  practised  by  them.  Tiie  ere' 
denda,  or  things  to  be  known  or  believed,  as  simply  necessary  to  those 
ends,  are  but  few  and  intelligible,  briefly  delivered  in  that  summary  of 
[the]  Christian  religion  usually  called  the  Apostles'  Creed.  —  SiR 
M  vrriiKW  Hale  :  jJ  Discourse  of  Religion,  p.  4. 


INTELLIGIBILITY   OF   CHRISTIAN   PRINCIPLES.  235 

Cunsidering  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  Almighty  God,  I  cannot 
possibly  beHeve  but  that  all  things  necessary  to  be  believed  and  prac- 
tised by  Christians,  in  order  to  their  eternal  salvation,  are  plainly  con- 
tivined  in""the  Holy  Scriptures.  God  surely  hath  not  dealt  so  hardly 
with  mankind  as  to  make  any  thing  necessary  to  be  believed  or 
practised  by  us  which  he  hath  not  made  sufficiently  plain  to  the 
capacity  of  the  unlearned  as  well  as  of  the  learned.  God  forl)id  that 
it  should  be  impossible  for  any  man  to  be  saved  and  to  get  to  heaven 
without  a  great  deal  of  learning  to  direct  and  carry  him  thither,  when 
the  far  greatest  part  of  mankind  have  no  learning  at  all !  It  was  well 
Baid  by  Erasmus,  that  "  it  was  never  well  with  the  Christian  world 
since  it  began  to  be  a  matter  of  so  much  subtilty  and  wit  for  a  man 
to  be  a  true  Christian."  —  Archbishop  Tillotson  :  Sermon  44 ;  171 
Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  219. 

I  know  not  whence  it  comes  to  pass,  that  men  love  to  make  j)lain 
things  oljscure,  and  hke  nothing  in  rehgion  but  riddles  and  mysteries. 
God,  indeed,  was  jjleased  to  institute  a  great  many  ceremonies  (and 
many  of  them  of  very  obscure  signification)  in  the  Jewish  worship,  to 
awe  theii'  childish  minds  into  a  gi-eater  veneration  for  his  di^-ine 
majesty.  But,  in  these  last  days,  God  hath  sent  his  ovm  Son  into  the 
world  to  make  a  plam  and  easy  and  perfect  revelation  of  his  will,  to 
publish  such  a  religion  as  may  approve  itself  to  our  reason,  and  capti- 
vate our  affections  by  its  natural  charms  and  beauties.  And  there 
cannot  be  a  greater  injury  to  the  Christian  religion  than  to  render  it 
obscure  and  unintelligible ;  and  yet  too  many  there  are  who  des])ise 
every  thing  which  they  undcrst;md,  and  think  nothing  a  sufficient  trial 
of  their  faith  but  what  contradicts  the  sense  and  reason  of  mankind.  — 
])r.  William  Sherlock:  Discourse  concerning  tlie  Knoivledge  of 
Christ,  chap.  iv.  sect.  2. 

Whence  is  it,  that,  amidst  all  the  obscurities  that  surround  us,  God 
has  placed  practical  duties  in  a  light  so  remarkably  clear  ?  "Whence 
is  if  that  doctrines  most  clearly  revealed  are,  however,  so  expressed  as 
to  furnish  difficulties,  if  not  substantial  and  real,  yet  likely  and  a])pa- 
rent;  and  that  the  practical  part  is  so  clearly  revealed  that  it  is  not 
liable  to  any  objections  which  have  any  show  or  color  of  argument  ? 
My  brethren,  either  we  must  deny  the  wisdom  of  the  Creator,  or  we 
must  infer  this  consequence,  that  what  is  most  necessary  to  be  known, 
what  will  be  most  fatal  to  man  to  neglect,  what  we  ought  most  invio- 
lably to  preserve,  is  practical  religion.  —  James  Saurin  :  Sermons^ 
vol.  iL  pp.  106-7. 


2^C  TNTKLLIGIBILITY    OF   CIIUISTIAN    PRINCIPLES. 

The  Cliristian  religion,  according  to  my  mind,  is  a  very  sinijjk 
thing,  intelligible  to  the  meanest  capacity,  and  what,  if  we  are  at  jiains 
to  join  practice  to  knowledge,  we  may  make  ourselves  thoroughly 
acquainted  with,  without  turning  over  many  books.  It  is  the  distin- 
guishing excellence  of  this  religion,  that  it  is  entirely  jiopular,  and 
fitted,  both  in  its  doctrines  and  in  its  evidences,  to  all  conditions  and 
Ciipacities  of  reasonable  creatures,  —  a  character  which  does  not  belong 
to  any  other  religious  or  philosophical  system  that  ever  appeared  in  the 
■world.  I  wonder  to  see  so  many  men,  eminent  both  for  their  piety 
and  for  their  capacity,  laboring  to  make  a  mystery  of  this  divine  insti- 
tution. If  God  vouchsafes  to  reveal  himself  to  mankind,  can  we 
suppose  that  he  chooses  to  do  so  in  such  a  manner  as  that  none  but 
the  learned  and  contemplative  can  underst;xnd  him  ?  The  generality 
of  mankind  can  never,  in  any  possible  circumstances,  have  leisure  or 
capacity  for  learning,  or  profound  contemplation.  If,  therefore,  we 
make  Christianity  a  mystery,  we  exclude  the  greater  part  of  mankind 
from  the  knowledge  of  it ;  which  is  directly  contrary  to  the  intention 
of  its  Author,  as  is  plain  fi-om  his  explicit  and  reiterated  declarations. 
In  a  word,  I  am  perfectly  con\'inced,  that  an  intimate  acquaintiince 
with  the  Scripture,  particuLirly  the  Gos]:)els,  is  all  that  is  necessary 
to  our  accompUshment  in  true  Clu'istian  knowledge.  —  Dr.  Jamej* 
Beattie  :  Letters,  pp.  67-8. 

Every  truth  contained  in  divine  revelation,  or  deducible  from  it,  is 
not  conve\-ed  with  equal  pcrsi)icuity,  nor  is  in  itself  of  equal  inijjor- 
fcince.  There  are  some  things  so  often  and  so  clearly  laid  down  in 
Scripture,  that  hardly  any  who  profess  the  belief  of  revealed  religion 
pretend  to  question  them.  About  these  there  is  no  controversy  in 
the  church.  Such  are  the  doctrines  of  the  unity,  the  sjjirituality,  the 
natural  and  moral  attributes,  of  God ;  the  creation,  ])reservation,  and 
government  of  the  world  by  him ;  the  ])rincipal  events  in  the  life  of 
Jesus  Christ,  as  well  as  his  crucifixion,  resurrection,  and  ascension- 
the  doctrine  of  a  futiu-e  judgment,  heaven  and  hell ;  together  with 
all  those  moral  truths  which  exhitiit  the  great  outlines  of  our  duty  tc 
God,  our  neighl)or,  and  ourselves.  In  general,  it  will  be  found,  that 
what  is  of  most  importiince  to  us  to  be  acquainted  with  and  belicTcd, 
is  oftenest  and  most  clearly  inculcated ;  and  that,  as  we  find  there  are 
degi-ees  in  belief  as  well  as  in  evidence,  it  is  a  very  natural  and  just 
conclusion,  that  our  belief  in  those  i)oints  is  most  rigorously  required 

which  are  notified  to  us  in  Scripture  with  the  cknirest  evidence. 

Is  ...  the   doctrine   of  revelation  absti-use  and   metaphysical,  and 


INTELLIGIBILITY  OF   CHRISTIAN   PRINCIPLES.  237 

therefore  not  to  be  apprehended  by  any  who  have  not  been  accus- 
tomed to  tlie  most  profound  and  abstract  researches  ?  By  no  means. 
The  character  which  Holy  Writ  gives  of  its  own  doctrine  is  the  very 
reverse  of  this.  It  is  pure  and  phin,  such  as  "  enhghteneth  the  eyes, 
and  maketh  wise  the  simple."  .  .  .  The  most  essential  truths  are  ever 
the  most  perspicuous.  —  Dr.  George  Campbell  :  Lectures  on  Sys- 
tematic Theology  and  Pulpit  Eloquence,  pp.  16,  17  ;  137,  139. 

It  may  be  reckoned  a  necessary  characteristic  of  divine  revelation, 
that  it  shall  be  deUvered  in  a  manner  the  most  adapted  to  wkit  are 
vulgarly  called  the  meanest  capacities ;  and  by  this  perspicuity,  both 
of  precept  and  of  doctrine,  the  whole  Bible  is  remarkably  distinguished. 
.  .  .  Obscurities  undoubtedly  have  arisen  from  the  great  antiquity  of 
the  Sacred  Writings,  from  the  changes  which  time  makes  in  language, 
and  from  some  points  of  ancient  history,  become  dark  or  doubtful ; 
but  these  affect  only  particular  passages,  and  bring  no  difficulty  at  all 
upon  the  general  doctrine  of  revelation,  which  is  the  only  thing  of 
universal  and  perpetual  importance.  —  Bishop  Horsley  :  Sermons, 
No.  VIL  p.  76. 

It  has  been  an  opinion  invariably  received  in  all  Protestant  coun- 
tries, that  whatever  is  necessary  to  be  believed  is  intelHgible  to  all 
persons  who  read  the  Scriptures  with  no  other  view  than  to  investigate 
and  embrace  the  truth.  It  would  be  easy  to  produce  a  cloud  of  au- 
thorities to  this  purpose.  —  Ur.  John  Symonds  :  Observations  upon 
the  Expediency  of  Revising  the  Present  English  Version  of  the  Epis- 
tles in  the  JVew  Testament,  p.  xv. 

While  there  are  many  things  which  God  conceals,  and  thereby 
advances  his  glory,  he  has  made  manifest  whatever  is  essential  for  man 
to  know.  Whatever  is  intimately  connected  with  our  duty  is  most 
plainly  taught :  whatever  is  important  to  om-  welfivre  and  happiness  is 
fully  revealed.  —  Robert  Hall  :  Sermon  on  Prov.  xxv.  2 ;  in  Works, 
vol.  iii.  p.  328. 

It  has  been  repeatedly  and  most  justly  noticed,  both  as  matter  of 
admiration  and  of  gratitude,  as  at  once  among  the  strongest  evidences 
and  the  most  valuable  characteristics  of  our  Christian  faith,  that,  under 
the  covenant  and  dispensation  of  grace,  the  things  most  essentiiilly 
necessary  to  man's  salvation  are  revealed  in  the  plainest  and  most 
unequivocal  terms,  are  made  (wheresoever  the  jierversit}-  of  the  human 
will  does  not  oppose  itself  to  the  teaching  of  the  Spirit  of  God)  cleat 
and  intelligible  to  all  men.  —  J.  J.  Conybeare  :  Bavipton  Leriures, 
page  1. 


238  INTELLIGIBILITt   OF  CHRISTIAN   PRINCIPI-ES. 

The  dubious  twilight  of  mystical  devotion,  and  the  vague  appre- 
hension of  unrevealed  mysteries,  surely  ainnot  but  seem  greatly  at 
variance  with  the  very  nature  of  Christianity,  to  those  who  regard  it 
as  fully  and  finally  disclosed  in  the  written  word.  .  .  .  That  wliich  is 
disclosed  is  perspicuous  and  undisguised ;  and  with  tliis  alone  it  is  that 
we  are  concerned :  with  what  may  be  hidden  from  as,  we  liave  notliing 
to  do.  Religion  to  us  exists  only  so  far  as  it  is  clearly  revealed.  Tiie 
acknowledgment  of  this,  upon  its  proper  evidence,  is  faith  :  the  sus- 
picion that  there  may  be  soniethuig  beyond,  with  which  we  are  yet 
concerned,  is  the  spu-it  of  mysticism.  —  Baden  Powell  :  Tradition 
Unveiled,  p.  74 ;  apud  "  Is  tfie  Church  of  England  a  Scriptural 
Church?"  ^l).  12,  13. 

The  truth  is,  that  a  very  large  part  of  this  profound  theology  is 
nothing  better  tlian  a  mere  jargon  of  words  without  meaning,  imiutel- 
Ugible  even  to  "  the  learned  "  themselves,  and  in  respect  of  wliich  the 
people  have  aheady  tliis  great  advantiige  over  such  teachers,  —  that 
the  people  are  aware  of  then-  own  ignorance  of  these  matters,  while 
their  teachers  pride  themselves  on  understanding  wkit  really  cannot 
be  understood.  Sometimes,  indeed,  when  they  are  pressed  with 
objections  to  their  own  expkmations  of  Scrijjture  doctrines,  divines  are 
apt  to  say  that  these  are  mysteries  which  cannot  be  understood  by 
even  the  most  exalted  intellects,  and  that  it  is  impious  to  pry  into 
them  too  curiously,  or  bring  them  to  the  test  of  reason.  But  tlien 
the  answer  is  obvious :  "  If  you  do  not  understand  these  things,  why 
do  you  undertake  to  explain  them  ?  To  every  tiling,  indeed,  which 
God  has  revealed,  the  deepest  reverence  and  the  lowest  submission 
are  due ;  but  not  so  to  man's  ex])lication  of  it.  If  we  venture  to  give 
a  further  account  of  what  he  has  siiid,  it  should,  at  least,  be  a  rational 
and  intelligible  account.".  .  .  Many  ingenious  theories  have,  indeed, 
from  time  to  time,  been  devised  and  set  forth  to  explain  and  reconcile 
the  statements  of  Scripture  with  respect  to  the  Trinity,  the  atone- 
ment, the  divine  decrees,  and  other  matters,  on  wliich  the  Bible  gi\es 
us  only  imj^erfect  information.  On  such  subjects,  men  have  Uikcn  uj) 
the  hints  wliich  the  s;icred  writers  seemed  to  drop,  and  souglit  to  fol- 
low them  up  by  conjecturing  what  the  full  account  of  the  matter  nuti) 
be ;  and  then  they  have  gone  on  to  settle  that  tliis  account,  wliich  they 
have  conjectured,  mimt  be  the  true  one,  l)ccause  it  gives  wbit  they  thinlt 
a  satisfactory  solution  of  much  that  is  difiicult  without  it ;  and  so  they 
have  finally  made  their  own  theories  a  jxirt  of  the  gospel.  —  Arch- 
ulbHOP  WiLVTLLY  :  Cautions  for  live  Tiiiiis,  pp.  27  J-7. 


CHRISIIANITY  NOT   SPECULATIVE,   BUT  PRACTICAL.  239 


SECT.    m.  —  CHRISTIANITY    NOT    A    RELIGION    OF    SPECULATTVE    OB 

THEORETICAL  PROPOSITIONS,   BUT  OF   VITAL   FACTS  AND 

PRACTICAL   PRINCLPLES. 


To  them,  the  sounding  jargon  of  the  schools 
Seems  what  it  is,  —  a  cap  and  bell  for  fools : 
The  light  they  walk  by,  kindled  from  above. 
Shows  them  the  shortest  way  to  life  and  lore. 


COWPER. 


Instead  of  those  simple  and  clear  ideas  which  render  the  truth  and 
majesty  of  the  Christian  religion  sensible,  and  which  satisfy  a  man's 
reason  and  move  his  heart,  we  meet  with  nothing  in  several  bodies 
of  divinity  but  metaphysical  notions,  curious  and  needless  questions, 
distinctions,  and  obscm'e  terms.  In  a  word,  we  find  there  such  intri- 
cate theology,  that  the  very  apostles  themselves,  if  they  came  into  the 
world  again,  would  not  be  able  to  understand  it,  without  the  help  of  a 
particular  revelation.  This  scholastic  divinity  has  done  more  mischief 
to  rehgion  than  we  are  able  to  express.  There  is  not  any  thing  that 
has  more  corrupted  the  purity  of  the  Chiistian  rehgion,  that  has  more 
obsciu-ed  matters,  multipUed  controversies,  disturbed  the  peace  of  the 
church,  or  given  rise  to  so  many  heresies  and  scliisms.  —  John  F. 
OsTEiiv.YLD:  Causes  of  the  Present  Corruption  of  Christians;  in 
Watson's  Theological  Tracts,  vol.  \i.  pp.  297-8. 

The  manner  of  teacliing  rehgious  truths  was  [in  the  first  century] 
perfectly  simple,  and  remote  from  all  the  rules  of  the  philosophers, 
and  all  the  precepts  of  human  art.  .  .  .  Nor  did  any  apostle,  or  any 
one  of  their  immediate  disciples,  coUect  and  arrange  the  piincipal 
doctrines  of  Christianity  in  a  scientific  or  regular  system.  The  cir- 
cumstiipces  of  the  times  did  not  require  tliis ;  and  the  followers  of 
Christ  were  more  soHcitous  to  exhibit  the  rehgion  they  had  embraced, 
by  their  tempers  and  conduct,  than  to  expkin  its  principles  scientifi- 
cally, and  arrange  them  accorduig  to  the  principles  of  art.  There  is, 
huleed,  extiuit  a  brief  summary  of  Christian  doctrines,  which  is  called 
the  Apostles'  Creed ;  and  which,  from  the  fourth  century  onward,  Avas 
attril)uted  to  Christ's  ambassadors  themselves.  But,  at, this  day,  all 
who  have  any  knowledge  of  antiquity  confess  unanimously  that  this 
opinion  is  a  mistake,  and  has  no  foundation.  —  John  L.  MosheiM  .' 
Ecclesiastical  History,  book  L  cent.  i.  part  2,  cliap.  3,  §  3,  4. 


240  CHRISTIANITY  NOT   SPECULATIVE,   BUT   PRACTICAL. 

The  gospel  is  not  a  system  of  theology,  nor  a  syntagma  of  theo- 
retictil  propositions  and  conclusions  for  the  enlargement  of  specuLitive 
knowledge,  ethical  or  meUipliysical.  But  it  is  a  history,  a  series  of 
facts  and  events  related  or  announced.  These  do,  indeed,  involve, 
or  rather  I  should  say  they  at  the  same  time  are,  most  important 
doctrinal  truths ;  but  still  facts  and  declarations  of  facts.  —  S.  T. 
CoLKRiUGE :  Aids  lo  Reflection ;  in  Jf'orks,  vol.  i.  pp.  234-5. 

We  might  suppose,  from  such  notions  of  the  Christian  faith  [the 
notions  entertained  by  modern  fanatics],  that  Christianity  was  a  set  of 
speculative  disquisitions,  where,  il'  a  man  agreed  only  with  the  barren 
and  useless  results,  he  was  left  in  liberty  to  follow  the  deuces  of  liis 
o>\Ti  heart,  and  to  lead  what  manner  of  Ufe  his  fancy  or  his  passions 
might  dictiile.  It  is  evangelical,  according  to  these  notions,  to  preach 
to  men  of  high  and  exalted  mysteries:  it  is  unevangelical  to  warn 
men  against  pride,  against  anger,  against  avarice,  against  fraud,  against 
all  the  innumerable  temptations  by  wliich  we  are  hunied  away  from 
our  duty  to  our  Creator,  and  from  the  great  care  of  salvation.  .  . . 
But  let  any  man  turn  to  his  gospel,  and  see  if  there  is  a  single 
instinice  of  our  blessed  Saviour's  life  where  he  does  not  eagerly  seize 
uj)on  every  ojjportunity  of  inculcating  something  practiciil,  of  bringing 
some  passion  under  subjection,  of  promoting  tiie  hapjjiness  of  the 
world,  by  teaching  his  followers  to  abstiin  from  something  hm'tful, 
and  to  do  something  useful.  .  .  .  But  the  moment  flmatical  men  hear 
any  thing  jjlain  and  practicid  introduced  into  religion,  they  say  this  is 
secular,  this  is  worldly,  this  is  moral,  this  is  not  of  Christ.  —  SYDNEY 
Smith:  Sei-mons,  vol.  i.  pp.  98-100. 

It  was  the  consummate  excellence  of  Christianity,  that  it  blended 
in  aj^parently  indissoluljle  union  rehgious  and  moral  perfection.  Its 
essential  doctrine  was,  in  its  pure  theory,  insejjarable  from  humane, 
virtuous,  and  charitable  disposition.  Piety  to  God,  as  he  was  imper- 
sonated in  Christ,  worked  out,  as  it  seemed,  by  sjjonbineous  energy 
uito  Christian  beneficence.  But  there  has  always  been  a  strong  pro- 
])ensity  to  disturb  this  nice  balance :  the  dogmatic  part  of  religion,  the 
province  of  faitli,  is  constiuitly  endeavoring  to  set  itself  apart,  and  to 
maintain  a  separate  existence.  . . .  Tlie  multiplication  and  subtle  refine- 
ment of  theologic  dogmas,  the  engrossing  interest  excited  by  some 
dominant  tenet,  especially  if  they  are  associated  with  or  embodied  in  a 
minute  and  rigorous  ceremonial,  tend  to  satisfy  and  lull  the  mind  into 
complacent  acquiescence  in  its  own  religious  completeness.  —  H.  H., 
MiLMAN:  Ilistortf  of  Christ'mnity,  book  iv.  chap.  5. 


CHRISTIANITY  NOT   SPECULATIVE,   BUT  PRACTICAL.  241 

We  should  rather  point  out  to  objectors,  that  what  is  revealed  ia 
practical,  and  not  speculative ;  that  what  the  Scriptures  are  concerned 
with  is  not  the  philosophy  of  the  human  mind  in  itself,  nor  yet  the 
pliiloso])hy  of  the  divine  nature  in  itself,  but  (that  which  is  properly 
religion)  the  relation  and  connection  of  the  two  beings,  —  what  God 
is  to  us,  what  he  has  done  and  will  do  for  us,  and  what  we  are  to  be 
and  to  do  in  regard  to  him.  —  Arcubishop  Whately  :  Sermons  on 
Various  Subjects,  p.  136. 

Christians  .  .  .  are  called  upon  to  consider,  not  so  much  the  doc- 
trines or  the  duties  of  Christianity,  as  they  are  its  design,  its  great 
object,  its  nature,  its  tendency,  its  genius.  They  have  disputed  long 
and  earnestly  on  its  doctrines ;  they  have  hesitated  and  doubted,  and 
been  relucttmt  to  follow  the  precepts  of  the  New  Testament.  Let 
them  try  now  to  drink  in  its  spirit.  Let  them  examine  what  the  pro- 
fession of  religion  means,  not  in  regard  to  one  or  two  doctrines,  or 
one  or  two  precepts,  but  in  its  inherent  spirit,  in  its  true  import,  in  its 
\it;xlity  as  a  thing  that  is  to  come  into  the  soul  with  spiritual  power, 
waking  the  dead  to  life.  Christianity  is  not  a  set  of  opinions,  nor  a 
system  of  duties.  It  is  not  an  orthodox  creed,  nor  a  moral  law.  It  is 
life  and  light.  . . .  He  who  does  not  catch  its  spirit  knows  nothing  about 
it.  Now,  this  spirit  is,  more  than  any  thing  else,  diffusive  benevolence. 
...  It  is  doing  good  to  all  men.  It  is  glad  tidings  of  great  joy  for  all 
people.  Christianity  is  not  designed  for  one  denomination,  or  one 
color,  or  one  language.  It  is  all-diffusive,  like  the  air  which  surrounds 
us.  —  B.  B.  Ed\vards,  as  quoted  in  Bib.  Sacra  for  October,  1853. 

It  is  nowhere  intimated  [in  the  Scriptures]  that  Christianity  is  a 
speculation  or  a  theory,  or  that  any  terms  of  human  thought  scienti- 
ficiilly  employed  can  organize  it.  Nothing  is  said  of  theologic  confes- 
sions or  articles,  or  of  scientific  efforts  in  Christian  doctrine.  The 
texts  constantly  cited  in  commencLition  of  "  sound  doctrine,"  and 
supposed  to  be  injunctions  that  maintain  the  necessity  of  being 
grounded  in  theologic  articles,  are  found,  when  narrowly  inspected, 
to  be  only  scholastic  misapplications  or  mistranslations,  —  tokens  of 
the  universal  imjjosture  regarding  this  matter  of  doctrine,  that,  long 
ages  ago,  li:id  gotten  j)Ossession  of  the  Christian  mind.  .  .  .  Thus,  we 
have  the  epithet  "  sound,"  which  occurs  many  times  in  application  to 
"  words,"  "  speech,"  "  faith,"  "  doctrine,"  and  is  understood  to  com- 
mend the  study  of  a  rugged,  solid,  and  sturdy  system  of  sj)eculative 
llieology :  wliereas  it  only  means  "  wholesome,"  as  it  is  once  trans- 
LUed;  tliil  is,  health-giving;  in  the  original,  hifgeian.     So  also  the 

21 


242  CIIRISTIANITy   NOT   SPECULATIVE,   BUT   PUACTICAI. 

flimous  all-text  of  Paul,  a  text  which  seems  to  have  worn  itself  into 
the  tongues  of  many  te.xcliers,  becomes  what  it  is  only  in  the  manner 
above  described.  It  reads  in  the  translation,  "  Hold  fast  the  form  of 
sound  words  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me."  In  the  original,  "  Hold 
fast  the  impression  of  the  health-giving  words  thou  lieardest  of  me," 
&c. ;  having  no  reference  at  all  to  any  matter  of  theoretic  doctrine,  or 
church  article,  any  more  than  to  the  Copernicivn  doctrines  of  astro- 
nomy. The  text  in  Jude,  "  Contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  which  was 
once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  has  suffered  a  simibr  hardship.  Lite- 
rally and  properly  ti'anskted,  the  call  or  exhortation  is  —  "  Strive 
(agonize)  for  the  faith,  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints."  "  Con- 
tend," a  word  of  churchly  pugnacity,  is  not  here.  By  "  the  faith," 
too,  is  meant  no  scheme  of  speculative  or  theologic  doctrine,  but  the 
practicixl  doctrine  of  a  godly  life,  as  grounded  in  the  living  faith  of 
Christ.  The  current  of  the  Epistle  sliows  that  the  errors  in  view  are 
not  errors  of  opinion,  but  licentious  manners  and  wicked  practices. . . . 
Furtheniiore,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  apostles  are  continually  jjrotest- 
ing,  in  one  form  or  another,  against  exactly  that  which  most  resembles 
a  speculative  and  theoretic  activity,  —  "  gnosis  "  or  "  knowledge  "  of 
one ;  the  "  wisdom  "  of  another ;  "  foolish  and  unlearned  questions 
that  do  gender  strifes ; "  "  oppositions  of  science,  falsely  so  called  ;  " 
"  vain  janglings  ;  "  "  profane  and  vain  babblings ;  "  the  being  spoiled 
"  througli  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tradition  of  men,  after 
the  rudiments  of  the  world,  and  not  after  Christ ; "  "  doting  about 
questions  and  strifes  of  words."  They  discourage,  in  a  word,  all  the 
attempts  of  inquisitive  and  would-be  wise  men  to  work  out  a  theory 
or  philosoi)hem  of  the  gospel,  by  activity  ih  and  about  tlieir  own 
human  centre.  Christ,  they  say,  is  the  doctrine,  and  the  method  of 
reason  is  faith.  "  Be  not  carried  about  with  divers  and  strange  doc- 
trines "  (i.  e.  doctrines  of  mere  speculation,  that  do  not  minister  to 
godly  edifying,  and  are  therefore  "  strange,"  i.  e.  foreign,  or  outside 
of  the  Christian  truth),  "for  it  is  a  good  thing  that  the  heart  be 
estiiblished  with  grace ; "  implying  a  conviction,  as  we  sec,  that  it  :3 
the  heart,  and  not  any  platform  of  articles,  that  will  anclior  a  soul  in 
stability.  And  for  just  this  reason,  I  supjiose,  the  same  aj)ostle 
declares  that  the  grand  test  of  orthodoxy  is  in  what  the  heart 
receives,  and  not  in  what  the  head  thinks:  "Now  the  end  ol  tiie 
commandment,"  that  which  includes  every  thing,  "  is  charity,  out  of  a 
pure  lie,n-f,  and  of  a  good  conscience,  and  of  faith  unfeigned."  — 
I)R.  lluiiACi-;  Hl.siim;li.  :   Christ  in  Thiologj,  p]i.  71-7. 


SIMPLICITY  OF  NEW-TESTAMENT  CREEDS.  243 


SECT.   IV.  —  THE    CKEEDS  AND   MYSTERIES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
SIMPLE  AND  COMPREHENSIBLE. 

I  am  more  zealous  than  ever  T  was  for  the  reduction  of  the  Christian  faith  to  the 
primitive  simplicity;  and  more  confident  that  the  cliurch  will  never  have  peace  and 
concord,  till  it  be  so  done,  as  to  the  test  of  men's  faith  and  communion. 

Richard  Baxtee. 

§  1.   Creeds  of  the  New  Testajient. 

If  we  observe  the  creeds  or  symbols  of  belief  that  are  in  the  New 
Testament,  we  shall  find  them  veiy  short.  "  Lord,  I  believe  that 
thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  who  was  to  come  into  the  world : "  that  was 
Martha's  creed.  "  Thou  art  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God :  "  that 
was  Peter's  creed.  "  We  know  and  believe  that  thou  art  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  li-\-ing  God :  "  that  was  the  creed  of  all  the  apos- 
tles. "  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  know  thee,  the  only  true  God ; 
and  whom  thou  hast  sent,  Jesus  Christ : "  that  was  the  creed  which 
our  blessed  Lord  himself  propounded.  And  again :  "  I  am  the 
resurrection  and  the  life :  lie  that  believeth  in  me,  yea,  though  he 
Avere  dead,  yet  shall  he  live ;  and  he  that  liveth  and  believeth  in  me 
shall  not  die  for  ever : "  that  was  the  catechism  that  Christ  made  for 
Martha,  and  questioned  her  upon  the  article,  "  Believest  thou  this  ?  " 
And  this  belief  was  the  end  of  the  gospel,  and  in  sufficient  perfect 
order  to  eternal  life.  For  so  St.  John :  "  These  things  are  written, 
that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and 
that,  beheving,  ye  might  have  life  through  his  name."  —  "  For  this  is 
the  word  of  liiith  which  we  pi'each,  namely,  if  you  with  the  mouth 
confess  Jesus  to  be  the  Lord,  and  believe  in  your  heart  that  God 
raised  him  from  the  dead,  you  shall  be  saved : "  that  is  the  Christian's 
creed.  •'  For  I  have  resolved  to  know  nothing  amongst  you  but  Jesus 
Christ,  and  him  crucified ;  that  in  us  ye  may  learn  not  to  be  vase 
above  tliat  which  is  written,  that  ye  may  not  be  puft'ed  up  one  for 
anotlier,  one  against  another :  "  ihat  was  St.  Paul's  creed,  and  that 
which  he  recommends  to  the  church  of  liome,  to  prevent  factions  and 
pride  and  schism.  The  same  course  he  ti\kes  with  the  Corinthian 
cliurch  :  "  I  make  known  unto  you  the  gospel  which  I  preaclied  unto 
you,  which  ye  have  received,  in  which  ye  stand,  and  by  which  ye  are 
saved,  if  ye  hold  what  I  deliver  to  you,"  Sec.  Well,  what  is  that 
gosjjol  l)y  wliicli  they  sliould  Ije  saved?     It  was  but  tliis,  "  that  Chri.st 


244  SIMPLICITY  OF  NEW-TESTAMENT  CREEDS. 

died  for  our  sins,  that  he  was  buried,  that  he  rose  again  the  third 
day,"  Sec.  So  that  the  sum  is  this :  The  Gentiles'  creed,  or  the 
creed  in  the  natural'  law,  is  that  which  St.  Paul  sets  down  in  the 
EjHstle  to  the  Hel)rews,  that  "  God  is,  and  that  God  is  a  rewarder." 
Add  to  this  the  Christian  creed,  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  —  that  he  is 
the  Clu'ist  of  God,  —  that  he  died  for  oui-  sins,  —  that  he  rose  again 
from  the  dead ;  and  there  is  no  question  but  he  that  believes  this 
heartily,  and  confesses  it  constantly,  and  Uves  accordingly,  shall  be 
saved.  We  cannot  be  deceived :  it  is  so  plainlvi  so  certiiinly,  affinned 
in  Scripture,  that  there  is  no  place  left  for  hesit;xtion.  .  .  .  Nothing 
more  plain  than  that  the  belieraig  in  Jesus  Christ  is  tliat  fundamental 
article  upon  which  every  other  proposition  is  but  a  superstructure, 
but  itself  alone  with  a  good  lil'e  is  sulhcient  to  Siilvation.  All  other 
things  are  advantage  or  disadvantage,  according  as  they  happen ;  but 
salvation  depends  not  upon  them.  ...  In  proportion  to  tliis  "  measure 
of  faith,"  the  apostles  preached  "  the  doctrine  of  faith."  St.  Peter's 
first  sermon  was,  that  "  Jesus  is  Christ,  that  he  was  crucified,  luid  rose 
again  from  the  dead ; "  and  they  that  believed  this  were  presently 
baptized.  His  second  sermon  was  the  same ;  and  then  also  he  bap- 
tized ]jroselytes  into  that  confession.  .  .  .  This  was  the  sum  of  all  that 
St.  Paul  preached  in  the  sjTiagogues  and  assembhes  of  the  2)eople : 
this  he  disjjuted  for,  this  he  proved  laboriously,  —  that  Jesus  is  Christ ; 
that  he  is  the  Son  of  God;  that  he  did,  that  he  ought  to,  suffer, 
and  rise  again  the  third  day;  and  this  was  all  that  new  doctrine 
for  which  the  Athenians  and  other  Greeks  wondered  at  him ;  and 
he  seemed  to  them  to  be  a  settcr-forth  of  strange  gods,  "  beaiuse  he 
jireached  Jesus  and  the  resurrection."  Tills  was  it  into  wliich  the 
jailer  ?>nd  all  his  house  were  baptized;  this  is  it  which  was  pro- 
jiounded  to  him  as  the  only  and  sufficient  means  of  salvation  : 
"  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  thou  shalt  be  siivcd,  and  all  thine 
house."  This  thing  was  illustrated  sometimes  with  other  glorious 
tilings  still  promoting  the  faith  and  honor  of  Jesus,  as  that  he  ascended 
into  heaven,  and  shall  be  the  Judge  of  all  the  world.  IJut  this  wiis 
the  whole  faith :  "  The  things  wliich  concerned  the  kingdom  of  God, 
ftnd  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,"  was  the  large  cii-cumference  of  the 
Christian  faith.  That  is,  such  articles  wliich  represent  God  to  be  our 
Loid,  and  Jesus  Christ  to  be  his  Son,  the  Saviour  of  the  world ;  that 
he  (lied  lor  us,  and  rose  again  and  was  glorified,  and  reigns  over  all 
the  world,  and  shall  be  our  Judge,  and  in  the  resurrection  skill  give 
(IS  according  to  our  works;  tliat  in  liia  name  only  we  skill  be  Siivedi 


SIMPLICITY   OB'   NE\V-TESTAMENT   OIIEEUS.  245 

that  Is,  I  y  faith  and  obedience  in  him,  by  the  mercies  of  God  revealed 
to  the  world  in  Jesus  Christ,  —  this  is  all  wliich  the  Scripture  calls 
necessary ;  tliis  is  that  faith  alone  into  which  all  the  church  was  bap- 
tized ;  which  fiiith,  when  it  was  made  aUve  by  charity,  was  and  is  the 
fiiith  by  which  "  the  just  shall  Uve."  —  Jeremy  Taylor  :  The  Rule 
of  Conscience,  book  ii.  cliap.  iii.  rule  xiv.  6j,  66 ;  in  JVorks,  vol.  xiii. 
pp.  155-8. 

At  the  first  promulgation  of  the  gospel,  all  who  professed  firmly 
to  beUeve  that  Jesus  was  the  only  lledeemer  of  mankind,  and  who 
promised  to  lead  a  holy  life  conformable  to  the  religion  he  taught, 
were  received  immediately  among  the  disciples  of  Christ ;  nor  did  a 
more  full  instruction  in  the  principles  of  Christianity  precede  their 
baptism,  but  followed  txfter  it.  —  John  L.  MosHElM :  Ecclesiastlccd 
History,  book  i.  cent.  i.  part  2,  chap.  3,  §  5. 

To  me  nothing  is  more  evident  than  that  the  essence  of  Chris- 
tianity, abstractly  considered,  consists  in  the  system  of  doctrines  and 
duties  revealed  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  that  the  essence  of 
the  Christian  chai-acter  consists  in  the  behef  of  the  one,  and  the 
obedience  of  the  other.  "Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  says 
the  apostle,  "  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  Again,  speaking  of  Christ, 
he  says,  "  Being  made  perfect,  he  became  the  author  of  eternal  salva- 
tion to  all  them  that  obey  him."  The  terms  rendered  sometimes 
"  l)elienng,"  and  sometimes  "  obeying,"  are  commonly  of  so  extensive 
signification  as  to  include  both  senses,  and  are  therefore  used  inter- 
ckangeal)ly.  —  Dr.  Geo.  Campbell  :  Ecclesiastical  History,  Lect.  4. 

No  one  acquainted  with  Scripture  will  hesitate  to  pronounce,  that 
the  belief  required  in  the  records  of  our  religion  is  the  belief 
that  "  Jesus  was  indeed  the  Chiist,  the  Saviour  of  the  world ;  "  "  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  which  should  come  into  the  world."  —  "  That 
they  might  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom 
thou  hast  sent,"  is  pronounced  to  be  "  eternal  life,"  even  in  that 
solemn  and  affecting  address  which  our  Redeemer  poured  forth  to 
the  Father,  just  before  the  commencement  of  his  sufferings.  What- 
soever controversy  may  have  been  stirred  about  the  meaning  of  these 
passages,  it  M-ill,  I  apprehend,  be  an  extremely  difficult  task  ...  to 
prove  that  the  fault  Ues  in  the  ambiguity  of  the  records  themselves.  — 
Bishop  ^L\ltby  :  Illustrations  of  tlie  Truth  of  the  Christian  Reli" 
g;ion,  pp.  304-5. 

It  was  a  creed,  and  not  a  history,  which,  in  all  the  accounts  we 
have  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  elsewhere,  formed  the  subject 

21* 


246  SIMPLICITY  OF  NEW-TESTAMENT   CKEEDS. 

of  oral  teaching.  .  .  .  But,  resting  as  tlie  creed  did  upon  the  historVi 
contiiining  no  doubt  in  its  primitive  form  a  very  few  simple  articles, 
would  it  not  necessarily  awaken  curiosity  as  to  the  historic  facts  ?  — 
II.  II.  MiLMAN  :  History  of  Christiaiu'tij,  vol  i.  p.  124. 

The  existence  and  first  development  of  the  Christian  church  rests 
on  an  historical  foundation,  —  on  the  acknowledgment  of  the  fact 
that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  —  not  on  a  certain  system  of  ideas, 
Christ  did  not  as  a  teacher  propound  a  certain  number  of  articles  of 
fiiith ;  but,  while  exhibiting  himself  as  the  liedeemer  and  Sovereign  in 
the  kiniijdom  of  God,  he  founded  his  chin-ch  on  the  facts  of  his  life 
and  sufferings,  and  of  his  triumph  over  death  by  the  resurrection. 
Thus  the  first  development  of  the  chm-ch  proceeded  not  from  a  certain 
system  of  ideas  set  forth  in  a  creed,  but  only  fi-om  the  acknowledge 
ment  of  one  fact  which  included  in  itself  all  the  rest  that  formed  the 
essence  of  Christianity,  —  the  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as  the  Mes- 
siidi,  in  which  were  involved  the  flicts  by  which  he  was  accredited  as 
such  by  God,  and  demonstrated  to  mankind ;  namely,  his  resurrection, 
glorification,  and  continual  agency  on  earth  for  the  estabUshment  of 
his  kingdom  in  dinne  power.  —  Augustus  Neander  :  History  of 
the  Planting  of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  i.  p.  20,  and  vol.  ii.  p.  64, 
John's  edition. 

^^'^ithout  any  elaljorate  written  confessions,  believers  professed  theit 
perfect  faith  in  Christ  as  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  Saviour 
of  men ;  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  word  of  God ;  in  the  Holy 
S])irit  as  the  sanctifier  and  the  spirit  of  truth ;  and  in  the  Scripture 
doctrines  of  holiness  in  this  life,  and  of  a  ftiture  state.  All  this,  and 
much  more,  was  comjjrchendcd  in  faith  in  Christ  To  believe  in 
Christ  was  to  believe  in  the  whole  system  of  Christianity.  Nothing 
more  than  an  exj)licit  ])rofession  of  faith  in  Christ  a])pears  to  luve 
been  necessary  to  admission  to  the  church.  Acts  viii.  37  ;  x\-i.  31-34. 
The  elaborate  confessions  of  faith  made  use  of  by  most  denominations 
in  modern  times  are  a  deviation  from  Christian  and  ai)ostonc  usage. 
They  are  meant  to  be  improvements  of  the  institutions  of  Christ ;  but 
they  are  reallv  corruptions  of  them.  Christ  made  no  such  stmdards, 
and  required  no  subscriptions  to  them.  Such  stxmdards  would  have 
materially  impeded  tlio  ])rogress  of  religion  in  the  apostolic  age,  and 
they  have  always  been  injurious.  Had  an  eLxborate  and  extended 
confession  of  Christian  fiiith  been  necessary,  such  an  instrument  ought 
to  have  been  given  to  the  jji-imitive  church  by  its  dinne  Founder.  — 
Leicester  A.  Sawyer  :  Organic  Christianity,  pp.  28-9. 


COMrilEIIENSlBILITY  OF  NEW-TESTAMENT   MYSTERIES.  247 

§  2.  JIysteries  of  thii;  Nkw  Testament. 

The  Greek  word  /luarfjptnv  occurs  frequently  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  is  uniformly  rendered,  in  the  Englisli  translation,  "  mystery."  Wp. 
all  know  that  by  the  most  current  use  of  the  English  word  "  mystery  " 
is  denoted  some  doctrine  to  human  reason  incomprehensible ;  in  other 
words,  such  a  doctrine  as  exhibits  difficulties,  and  even  aj)parent  con- 
tradictions, which  we  cannot  sohe  or  explain.  Another  use  of  the 
word,  which  is  often  to  be  met  with  in  ecclesiastic  writers  of  former 
ages,  and  in  foreign  writers  of  the  present  age,  is  to  signify  some 
rehgious  ceremony  or  rite,  especially  those  now  denominated  sacra^ 
ments.  When  we  come  to  examine  the  Scri])tui-es  critically,  anu 
nicilve  tliem  serve  for  their  o\ra  interpreters,  which  is  the  surest  way 
of  attiiining  the  true  knowledge  of  them,  we  shall  find,  if  I  mistake 
not,  that  both  these  senses  ai-e  misupported  by  the  usage  of  the 
inspired  penmen.  The  leading  sense  of  the  word  Is  arcanum,  a 
secret ;  any  tiling  not  disclosed,  not  published  to  the  world,  though 
perhaps  communicated  to  a  select  number.  This  is  totally  different 
from  the  cm-rent  sense  of  the  English  word  "  mystery,"  something 
incomprehensible.  In  the  former  acceptation,  a  thing  was  no  longer 
a  mystery  than  whilst  it  remained  unrevealed ;  in  the  latter,  a  thing  is 
equally  a  mystery  after  the  revelation  as  before.  To  the  former  we 
api)ly,  proj)erly,  the  epithet  "  unknown ; "  to  the  latter  we  may,  in  a 
great  measure,  api)ly  the  term  "  unknowable."  Thus  the  proposition 
that  God  would  Ciill  the  Gentiles,  and  receive  them  into  his  church, 
was  as  intelligil)Ie  or  compreliensible  as  that  he  once  had  called  the 
descendants  of  the  patriarchs,  or  as  any  ])lain  proposition  or  historical 
fact.  Yet,  whilst  undiscovered,  it  remained,  in  the  scriptural  idiom, 
a  "  mystery,"  ha\'ing  been  hidden  from  ages  and  generations ;  but, 
after  it  had  pleased  God  to  reveal  this  his  gracious  purpose  to  the 
fej)OstIes  by  his  Spirit,  it  was  a  mystery  no  longer.  It  is  pro])er  to 
take  notice  of  one  passage,  wherein  the  word  ^varripLov,  it  ma)'  be 
pLiusibly  urged,  must  have  the  same  sense  with  that  which  present 
use  gives  to  the  English  word  "mystery,"  and  denote  something, 
which,  though  revealed,  is  inexi)licable,  and  to  human  faculties  unin- 
telligible. The  words  are, "  Without  controversy,  great  is  the  mystery 
of  godliness :  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  &c.,  1  Tim.  iii.  16. 
Admit  that  some  of  the  great  articles  enumerated  may  be  justly  called 
mysteries  in  the  ecclesiasti&il  and  present  acceptvtion  of  the  term,  it 
does  not  follow  tlut  this  is  the  sense  of  tjie  term  here.     The  purport 


248         COMPKEHENSICILITY   OF   NEW-TESTAMENT  MYSTERIES. 

of  the  sentence  pkinly  is, "  Great  unquestionably  is  the  di\ine  secret,  of 
which  our  religion  brings  the  discovery :  God  was  manifest  in  tlie 
flesh,"  &c.  —  Abridged  from  Dr.  Geouge  Campbell  :  The  Fowr 
Gospels,  Diss.  ix.  part  i.  §§  1,  2,  3,  13. 

In  support  of  his  explanation  of  the  term  "  mystery,"  this  able  writer 
refers,  among  other  passages,  to  1  Cor.  iv.  1,  ^hitt.  xiii.  11,  and  to  those  in 
which  occur  the  phrases,  "  mystery  of  the  gospel,"  "  mystery  of  the  faith," 
"mystery  of  God,"  and  "  mystery  of  Christ." 

As  the  expression  has,  unfortunately,  I  think,  been  admitted  into 
our  communion  service,  I  am  bomiden  to  show  you  the  origin  of  it. 
The  word  "  mystery,"  then,  is  sometunes  used  for  particular  doctrines 
of  the  gospel,  as  was  the  cane  also  with  sacrarnentum :  sometimes  it 
is  used  for  the  whole  collective  religion  of  Christ.  In  both  of  tlaese 
uses,  it  contains,  not  any  proposition  concerning  the  essence  of  the 
Deity,  but  those  moral  dispensations  which  are  facts,  and  which,  as 
such,  can  be  fully  comprehended  by  reason;  but  which  are  ceiUed 
mysteries,  because  they  were  unknown  before  the  coming  of  Christ. 
That  Clu'ist  was  sent  by  the  Father  is  a  fact ;  that  he  taught  the  most 
holy  doctrine  is  a  fact ;  that  he  worked  miracles  is  a  iact ;  that  he  died 
upon  the  cross  is  a  fixct ;  that  he  rose  i'rom  the  grave  is  a  llict ;  tliiit 
his  rehgion  would  be  preached  to  the  Gentiles  is  a  Iact ;  and  all  these 
fircts  are  so  far  mystjerious  as  that  they  could  not  be  known  to  us 
without  a  revelation  from  God.  —  Dr.  Samuel  Pauu  :  Sermons  on 
tfie  Sacrament ;  in  Works,  vol.  vi.  pp.  147-8. 

The  Greek  fivar^pwv  is  commonly  rendered  "  mystery."  It  answers 
to  the  Hebrew  "ij^o?::,  and  signifies  in  general  am/  thing  concealed, 
hidden,  unknown.  In  the  New  Tesfciment,  it  genendly  signifies 
doctrines  ivhich  are  concealed  from  men,  eitlicr  because  they  were 
never  before  published  (in  which  sense  every  unlcnown  doctrine  is 
mysterious),  or  because  they  surpass  human  comprehension.  Some 
doctrines  are  said  to  be  mysterious  for  both  of  these  reasons ;  but  more 
frequently  doctrines  which  are  simply  unknown  are  Ciilled  by  this 
name.  Mvari/pun'  signifies,  therefore,  in  its  bil)lical  use, —  (1)  Chris- 
tianity in  its  whole  extent,  beaiuse  it  was  unknown  before  its  pul)Ii- 
cation;  e.g.  1  Tim.  iii.  1).  (2)  Particular  truths  of  the  Christian 
revelation;  e.g.  1  Cor.  iv.  1;  xv.  ol,  and  especially  in  the  writings 
of  Paul.  (3)  The  doctrine  tluit  the  divme  giiice  in  Christ  extends, 
without  distinction,  to  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  because  this  doctrine 
ufas  so  new  to  tlie  Jews,  and  so  foreign  to  their  feelings;  e.g.  Eph. 


COMPREHEN^BILITY   OF   NEW-TESTAMENT  MYSTERIES.         249 

i.  9 ;  iii.  3.  Col.  v.  6,  scq.,  &c.  The  word  "  mystery  "  is  now  com- 
monly used  in  theology  in  a  niore  limited  sense.  Here  it  signifies  a 
doctrine  revealed  in  the  Holy  Scriptm-es,  the  inode  of  which  is  inscru- 
table to  the  human  understanding.  ...  Of  this  nature  are  the  doctrines 
respecting  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  the  union  of  two  natures  in 
Christ ;  the  atonement,  &c.  —  G.  C.  Ivnapp  :  Christian  Theology, 
sect.  ^^.  1,  2. 

But  this  excellent  writer  does  not  point  out  any  passage  of  the  Bible 
in  which  the  word  "  mystery  "  is  applied  to  the  doctrine  of  three  persons 
iu  one  God,  the  incarnation  of  God  the  Son,  or  any  other  incomprehensible 
tenet  in  Trinitarian  theology. 

The  apostle  [Paul]  natm-ally  makes  allusion  to  these  [heathen 
rites],  by  the  use  of  the  word  "  mystery,"  to  denote  those  designs  of 
God's  pro\idence,  and  those  doctrinal  truths,  which  had  been  kept 
concealed  from  mankind  "  till  the  fulness  of  time  "  was  come,  "  but 
were  now  made  manifest "  to  believers.  .  .  .  Our  ordinary  use  of  the 
word  "mystery"  conveys  the  notion  of  something  that  we  cannot 
understand  at  all,  and  which  it  is  fruitless  to  inquire  into.  .  .  .  Such 
an  expression  as,  "  This  is  a  mystery  to  us,"  conveys  to  us  the  idea 
that  it  is  something  we  do  not  and  cannot  understand :  to  Paul  it 
would  convey  the  idea,  tliat  it  is  something  which  "now  is  made 
manifest,"  and  which  we  are  therefore  called  upon  to  contemplate 
and  study ;  even  as  his  office  was  "  to  make  known  the  mystery  of  the 
gospel."  Not  that  he  meant  to  imply  that  we  are  able  fully  to  under- 
stand the  divine  dispensations ;  but  it  is  not  in  reference  to  this  their 
inscrutible  character  that  he  calls  them  mysteries,  but  the  reverse  : 
they  are  reckoned  by  him  mysteries,  not  so  far  forth  as  they  are  hid- 
den and  unintelligible,  but  so  far  forth  as  they  are  revealed  and 
explained.  —  Archbishop  Whatelt  :  Essays  on  Difficulties  in 
Paul's  Writings,  pp.  288-9. 

The  word  "  mystery "  (jivaTripcm')  means  literally  something  into 
which  one  must  be  initiated  before  it  is  fully  known  (from  fxviu,  to 
initiate,  to  instruct) ;  and  then  any  thing  which  is  concealed  or  hidden. 
We  commonly  use  the  word  to  denote  that  which  is  above  our  com- 
prehension, or  unintelligible ;  but  this  is  never  the  meaning  of  the 
word  in  the  New  Testament,  It  means  there  some  doctrine  or  fact 
which  has  been  concealed,  or  which  has  not  before  been  fully  re- 
vealed, or  which  has  been  set  forth  only  by  figures  and  symliols. 
"When  the  doctrine  is  made  known,  ii  may  be  as  clear  and  plain  as 
any  other.  —  Dii.  Albert  Barnes,  in  liis  note  on  Eph.  i.  9. 


250  BELIKF   IN   XUIMTAUIAN    MVSTEIUE3 


SECT.  V,  —  BELIEF  IN  UNINTELLIGIBLE  MYSTERIES  AND  METAPnYSIOAL 
CREEDS  NOT   ESSENTIAL   TO   SALVATION. 

Thank  God!  man  is  not  to  be  judged  by  man.  —  P.  J.  Bailet.     , 

Tf  it  were  considered  concerning  Athanasius's  Creed,  how  many 
peo])le  understand  it  not,  how  contrary  to  natural  reason  it  seems,  how 
little  the  Scripture  says  of  those  curiosities  of  explication,  and  how 
traditioi.  \\is  not  clear  on  his  side  for  the  article  itself,  ...  it  liad  not 
been  amiss  if  the  final  judgment  luid  been  left  to  Jesus  Christ. .  .  . 
Indeed,  to  me  it  seems  very  hard  to  put  uncharitiibleness  into  the 
creed,  and  so  to  make  it  become  as  an  article  of  faith.  —  Jeremy 
Taylor  :  Liberty  of  PropJiesying,  sect.  ii.  3G ;  in  Jf'orks,  voL  \u. 
pp.  491-3. 

The  belief  of  the  Trimty  is  a  practi&il  belief.  Far  be  it  from  us 
to  think  that  every  plain  Christian  shall  be  damned  who  knoweth  not 
what  a  person  in  the  Trinity  is,  as  eternally  ine.vistent,  when  all  the 
divines  and  school  wits  as  good  as  confess,  after  tedious  disputes  with 
unintclligilile  woi;(ls,  that  they  know  not.  —  RiciURD  Baxter  : 
Catcchizinjr  of  Families  ;  Jn  Practical  Works,  vol.  xix.  ])p.  63—1. 

We  believe  it  to  be  taught  in  Scripture,  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of 
God,  in  respect  to  his  divine  nature  and  eternal  filiation ;  but  we  dare 
not  pronounce  belief  in  this  doctrine  necessary  to  eternal  salvation. 
The  doctrine  is,  indeed,  involved  in  so  much  obscurity  and  subtlety, 
that,  after  haAing  harassed  themselves  in  attempting  to  understand  it, 
tlie  most  learned  and  talented  men  have  been  forced  to  acknowledge 
their  own  ignorance.  Now,  it  is  incredible  that  the  Almighty  should 
have  caused  our  everlasting  hai)j)iness  to  depend  on  the  reception  of  a 
dogma  so  obscure  and  i)erplexed,  that  in  all  probability  no  man  Gxn 
form  a  distinct  conception  of  it.  Many  other  dogmas  are  involved  in 
the  same  obscurity,  such  as  that  of  the  most  Holy  Trinit}',  namely, 
that  there  is  in  one  numerical  essence  three  distinct  persons;  one 
begetting,  another  begotten,  and  a  third  jjroceeding ;  —  and  that  of 
the  i-crson  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Clnist,  wliich,  though  only  one,  consists 
of  two  com])lete  natures,  the  divine  and  the  human.  It  Ciuuiot,  tliere- 
fore,  be  urged  that  the  l)elief  of  such  doctrines  is  essential  to  salva- 
tion. —  Al)ridged  from  PlllLiP  LiMBORClI :  Tlieohgia  Christiana, 
lib.  v.  cap.  y,  §§  9,  10. 


NOT   ESSENTIAL   TO   SALVATION.  251 

The  vulgar  sort  think  that  they  know  Christ  enough  out  of  their 
creeds  and  catechisms,  and  confessions  of  taith ;  and  if  they  have  but 
a  little  acquainted  themselves  with  these,  and  like  parrots  conned  the 
words  of  them,  they  doubt  not  Ijut  they  are  sufficiently  instructed  in 
all  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Many  of  the  more  learned, 
if  they  can  but  wrangle  and  dispute  about  Christ  [about  his  Divinity, 
humanity,  union  of  both  together,  and  what  not],  imagine  themselves 
to  be  growni  great  proficients  in  the  school  of  Christ.  .  .  .  Our  Saviour 
prescribes  his  disciples  another  method  to  come  to  the  right  know- 
ledge of  di\'ine  truths,  by  doing  of  God's  will.  "  He  that  will  do  my 
Father's  will,"  saith  he,  "  shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether  it  be  of 
God."  —  Dr.  Kvlpii  Cudworth  :  Sermon  1,  appended  to  Intellectual 
System  of  the  Universe,  voL  ii.  pp.  549-50. 

Everlasting  salvation,  it  is  hoped,  depends  not  on  a  belief  in  the 
doctrine  of  a  third  person  in  the  Godhead.  ...  I  do  not  think  that 
God  will  condemn  him  who  errs  in  this  matter,  particularly  if  he  is 
an  honest  and  conscientious  inquii-er.  —  J.  D.  Michaelis  :  Anrnfr- 
kungen  on  John  x\i.  13-15. 

I  insist  upon  no  explication  [of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity]  at  all  ; 
no,  not  even  on  the  best  I  ever  saw ;  I  mean  that  which  is  given  us 
in  the  creed  commonly  ascribed  to  Athanasius,  I  am  far  from  saying, 
He  who  does  not  assent  to  this  "  shall  without  doubt  perish  ever- 
lastingly." ...  I  diire  not  insist  upon  any  one's  using  the  word 
"  Trinity "  pr  "  Person,"  I  use  them  myself  without  any  scruple, 
because  I  know  of  none  better;  but,  if  any  man  has  any  scruple 
concerning  them,  who  shall  constrain  him  to  use  them  ?  I  cannot , 
much  less  would  I  burn  a  man  alive,  and  that  with  moist,  green  wood, 
for  saying,  "  Though  I  believe  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God,  yet  I  scruple  using  the  words  Trinity  and 
Persons,  because  I  do  not  find  those  terms  in  the  Bible."  These 
are  the  words^  which  merciful  John  Calvin  cites  as  wrote  by  Servetus 
in  a  letter  to  himself.  —  John  Wesley  :  Sermon  60 ;  in  Jf^'orlcs, 
vol.  ii.  p.  21. 

Bishop  Burnet  has  said  all  that  can  well  be  said  upon  them  [the 
damnatory  sentences  in  the  Athanasian  Creed],  but,  in  my  opinion,  to 
very  Httle  purpose.  Honestly,  therefore,  did  Archbishop  Tillotson 
declare  to  him,  "  The  account  given  of  Athanasius's  Creed  seems  to 
me  in  nowise  satisfactory.  I  wish  we  were  well  rid  of  it."  —  And  so 
do  I  too,  for  the  credit  of  our  common  Christianity.  It  has  been  a 
millstone  about  the  neck  of  many  thousands  of  worthy  men.     To  be 


2.") 2  BELIEF   IN   TRINITARIAN   MYSTERIES 

sure,  declarations  like  these  ascended  out  of  the  bottomless  pit,  to 
disgrace  the  subscribing  clergy,  to  render  ridiculous  the  doctrines  of 
tlie  gospel,  to  impel  the  world  into  infidehty,  and  to  damn  the  souls 
of  those  wlio,  lor  the  sake  of  filthy  lucre,  set  their  hands  to  what  they 
do  not  honestly  believe.  The  truth  is,  though  I  do  believe  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  as  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  yet  I  am  not 
prejjared,  openly  and  expUcitly,  to  send  to  the  Dedl,  under  my 
solemn  subscription,  every  one  who  cannot  embrace  the  Athanasian 
illustration  of  it.  Li  this  thing  the  Lord  pardon  his  servant  for 
subscribing  in  time  past.  Assuredly  I  will  do  so  no  more.  —  David 
Simpson  :  Plea  for  Religion,  p.  404,  Appendix  ii. 

This  noble-minded  man  was  prevented  by  death  from  putting  into  effect 
his  resolution  of  quitting  the  Established  Church  of  England. 

[1]  What  are  the  catechisms  of  the  Romish  church,  of  the 
English  church,  of  the  Scotch  church,  and  of  all  other  churches,  but 
a  set  of  propositions  wliich  men  of  different  natural  cajxicities,  educix- 
tions,  prejudices,  have  fabriaited  (sometimes  on  the  anvil  of  sincerity, 
oftener  on  that  of  ignorance,  interest,  or  hypocrisy)  from  the  divine 
materials  furnished  by  the  Bible  ?  And  can  any  man  of  an  enlarged 
charity  beheve,  that  his  salvation  will  ultimately  depend  on  a  concur- 
rence in  oj)inion  with  any  of  these  niceties,  which  the  several  sects  of 
Christians  have  assumed  as  essentially  necessary  for  a  Christian  man's 
beUef  ?  Oh,  no !  Christianity  is  not  a  specuLitive  busyiess.  One 
good  act  performed  from  a  principle  of  obedience  to  the  declared  \vill 
of  God  will  be  of  more  service  to  every  individual  than  all  the  specu- 
lative theology  of  St  Augustine [2]  That  man  is  not  to  be 

esteemed  an  Atheist  who  acknowledges  the  existence  of  a  God,  the 
Creator  of  the  universe,  thougli  he  Cixnnot  assent  to  all  the  truths  of 
natural  religion,  which  other  men  may  undertake  to  deduce  from  that 
principle ;  nor  is  he  to  be  esteemed  a  Deist  who  acknowledges  that 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  indeed  the  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  the  world, 
though  he  cmnot  assent  to  all  the  truths  of  revealed  religion,  which 
other  men  may  think  themselves  warranted  as  deducing  from  thence. 
Still,  you  will  probably  rejoin,  there  must  be  many  truths  in  the 
Christian  religion  concerning  which  no  one  ought  to  hesifc\te,  inas- 
mucli  as  without  a  belief  in  them  he  cannot  be  reputed  a  Christian. 
Reputed !  By  whom  ?  By  Jesus  Christ,  his  Lord  and  his  God ;  or 
by  you  ?  Riish  expositors  of  points  of  doubtful  disputation ;  intole- 
rant fiibricators  of  metivphysical  creeds,  and  incongruous  systems  of 


NOT  ESSENTIAL  TO  SALVATION.  253 

theology !  Do  you  undertake  to  measure  the  extent  of  any  man's 
underst^mding  excejjt  your  own ;  to  esthnate  the  strength  and  origin 
of  his  habits  of  thinking;  to  appreciate  his  merit  or  demerit  in  the 
use  of  the  talent  which  God  has  given  him ;  so  as  unerringly  to  pro- 
nounce that  the  behef  of  this  or  that  doctrine  is  necessary  to  his 
salvation  ?  ...  If  different  men,  in  carefully  and  conscientiously 
examining  the  Scriptures,  should  arrive  at  different  conclusions,  even 
on  points  of  the  last  importance,  we  trust  that  God,  who  alone  knows 
what  every  man  is  capable  of,  will  be  merciful  to  him  that  is  in  error. 
We  trust  that  he  will  pardon  the  Unitarian,  if  |^e  be  m  an  error, 
because  he  has  fallen  mto  it  from  the  dread  of  becoming  an  idolater, 
—  of  giving  that  glory  to  another  which  he  conceives  to  be  due  to 
God  alone.  K  the  worshipper  'of  Jesus  Christ  be  in  an  error,  we 
trust  that  God  wiU  pardon  his  mistake,  because  he  has  fallen  "into  it 
from  a  dread  of  disobeying  what  he  conceives  to  be  revealed  concem- 
mg  the  nature  of  the  Son,  or  commanded  concerning  the  honor  to  be 
given  liim.  Both  are  actuated  by  the  same  principle,  —  the  fear  of 
God ;  and,  though  that  principle  impels  them  into  different  roads,  it 
is  our  hope  and  behef,  tliat,  if  they  add  to  their  faith  charity,  they 
will  meet  in  heaven.  —  Bishop  Watson. 

The  passage  marked  [1]  is  taken  from  the  Anecdotes  of  Watson's  Life, 
p.  405;  that  numbered  [2],  from  the  Preface  to  his  Collection  ot  Theological 
Tracts,  vol.  i.  pp.  xv. — xviii. 

That  a  belief  in  these  formulas  [those  which  have  been  retained 
since  the  Nicene  Council  in  the  system  of  the  church,  estabUshed  and 
enforced]  should  be  declared  essential  to  salvation,  as  is  done  in  the 
Athanasian  Creed,  cannot  but  be  disapproved.  This  creed,  however, 
was  not  composed  by  Athanasius ;  nor  was  it  even  ascribed  to  him 
before  the  seventh  century,  though  it  was  probably  composed  in  the 
fifth.  The  principle  that  any  one  who  holds  different  views  respecting 
the  Trinity  salvus  esse  non  poterit  [cannot  be  saved]  .  .  .  would  lead 
us  to  exclude  from  salvation  the  great  majority  evgn  of  those  Chris- 
tians who  receive  the  doctrine  and  language  of  the  Council  of  Nice ; 
for  common  Christians,  after  all  the  efforts  of  their  teachers,  will  not 
unfrequently  conceive  of  three  Gods  in  the  three  persons  of  the  God- 
head, and  thus  entertain  an  opinion  which  the  creed  condemns.  But 
if  the  many  pious  believers  in  common  life  wlio  entertiiin  this  theo- 
retical en-or  may  yet  be  saved,  then  others  who  believe  in  Christ  from 
the  heart  and  obey  his  precepts,  who  have  a  personal  experience  of  tha 

22 


254:  BELIEF  IN  piINlTAKIAN  MYSTERIES 

pmctical  effects  of  tliis  doctrine,  may  also  be  saved,  though  they  may 
adoj^t  other  particular  tl:eories  and  formulas  respecting  the  Trinity, 
different  from  that  commonly  received.  These  particular  formulas  and 
theories,  however  much  they  may  be  reg-arded  and  insisted  upon,  have 
nothing  to  do  with  salvation.  —  G.  C.  ICn.^pp  :  Christian  Theology, 
sect,  xxxiii.  2. 

AVe  know  that  different  persons  have  deduced  different  and  even 
ojjposite  doctrines  from  the  words  of  Scri])ture,  and  cr)nsequently 
there  must  be  many  errors  among  Christians ;  but,  since  the  gospel 
nowhere  informs  %s  what  degree  of  error  mil  exclude  from  eternal 
hajjpiness,  I  am  ready  to  acknowledge,  that,  in  my  judgment,  notwith- 
stiuuling  the  authority  of  former  times,  our  church  would  have  acted 
more  wisely  and  more  consistently  with  its  general  principles  of  mild- 
ness and  toleration,  if  it  had  not  adopted  the  damnatory  ckuses  of 
the  Athanasian  Creed.  Though  I  firmly  believe  that  tlie  doctrines 
themselves  of  this  creed  are  all  founded  in  Scrij)tin-e,  I  cannot  but 
conceive  it  to  be  both  unnecessary  and  presumptuous  to  say,  that, 
"  except  every  one  do  keep  them  whole  and  undefiled,  without  doubt 
he  shall  i)erish  everlastingly."  —  Bishop  Tomline  :  Elements  of 
Christian  Tlieolo^ij,  vol.  ii.  p.  222. 

I  would  willingly  admit,  that  siilvation  may  be  obt;iinod  without  a 
knowledge  of  the  Athanasian  Creed.  Thousands  and  millions  of 
Christians  have  gone  to  their  graves,  who  have  either  never  heard 
of  it,  or  not  understood  it ;  and  I  would  add,  that  let  a  man  believe 
the  Scriptures,  let  him  profess  his  faith  in  Christ  in  the  plain  and 
sim]jle  language  of  the  New  Testament,  and  he  may  pass  through  life 
as  ])iously  and  happily,  he  may  go  to  his  grave  witii  as  quiet  a  con- 
science, and,  more  than  this,  he  may  rise  again  as  freely  pardoned  and 
fijrgiven,  as  if  he  had  dived  into  the  dej)ths  of  controversy,  and  traced 
the  nature  of  the  Deity  through  the  highest  walks  of  metajjhysics. 
I^ut,  &c.  —  Ur.  Edw.  Burton  :  Theological  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  2S3. 

I  do  not  believe  the  damnatory  clauses  in  the  Athanasian  Cieed, 
under  any  qualification  given  of  them,  except  such  as  substitute  for 
them  projjositions  of  a  wholly  different  character.  Those  clauses 
proceed  on  a  false  notion,  which  I  have  elsewhere  noticed,  tliat  the 
importance  of  all  opinions  toucliing  God's  nature  is  to  be  measured 
by  his  greatness;  and  that,  therefore,  erroneous  notions  about  the 
Trinity  are  worse  than  erroneous  notions  about  church  government, 
or  pious  frauds,  or  any  other  disputed  point  on  which  there  is  a  right 
and  a  wrong,  a  true  and  a  false,  and  on  which  the  wrong  and  the  false 


NOT  ESSENTIAL  TO   SALVATION.  255 

nuty  indeed  be  highly  sinful ;  but  it  does  not  follo\v  that  they  tmist 
be ;  and  their  sinfulness  does  not  depend  upon  their  Avrongness  and 
falsehood,  but  on  other  cii'curastances  in  the  particular  mind  of  the 
person  holding  them.  —  Dr.  Thomas  Arnold  :  Letter  185 ;  in  Life 
and  Correspondence,  pp.  321-2. 

By  such  a  procedure  [as  that  of  persons  stigmatizing  as  heterodox 
all  apjjeal  to  private  judgment,  excejjt  that  of  their  own  judgment, 
and  that  of  such  as  agree  with  them],  uninspired  and  fallible  men 
arrogate  to  themselves  an  authority  which  belongs  only  to  God,  and 
his  inspired  messengers ;  and  the  creeds,  articles,  catechisms,  and  other 
formularies  of  a  church,  or  the  expositions,  deductions,  and  assertions 
of  an  individual  theologian,  are,  practicall}',  put  in  the  place  of  the 
Holy  Scriptui-es.  ...  To  decide  wlio  are  and  who  are  not  partakers  of 
the  benefits  of  the  Christkn  co%  enaiit,  and  to  prescribe  to  one's  fellow- 
mortiils,  as  the  terms  of  salvation,  the  implicit  adoption  of  our  own 
interjjretiitions,  is  a  most  fearful  presumption  in  men  not  producing 
miraculous  proofs  of  an  immediate  divine  mission.  —  Arcubisiiop 
Whately  :   Essays  on  Dangers  to  Christian  Faith,  pp.  238-9. 

How  was  the  noble  heart  of  Dante  crushed  by  the  thought,  that 
his  dear  master,  and  all  the  men  whom  he  reverenced  in  the  old 
world,  were  outcasts  for  not  belie\ing  in  the  Trinit}' !  That  thought 
evidently  shook  his  fiiith  in  the  Trinity.  And  it  would  shake  mine, 
because  it  would  lead  me  to  suppose  that  truth  only  became  true 
when  Christ  appeared,  instead  of  being  revealed  by  him  for  all  ages 
past  and  to  come ;  so  that  whoever  walked  in  the  hght  then,  whoever 
walks  m  it  now,  seeking  glory  and  immort;Uitj',  desirous  to  be  true, 
has  glimpses  of  it,  and  will  liave  the  Iruition  of  it,  which  is  Ufe  eter- 
nal. —  Frederick  D.  Maurice  :  .Yote  on  the  Athanasian  Creed ;  in- 
Theological  Essays,  p.  369. 

We  are  cheered  with  a  belief,  that,  in  the  darkest  ages,  hundreds 
and  thou.sands  of  imlettered  men  felt  an  influence  which  they  could 
not  explain,  —  the  influence  of  love  attracting  to  itself  the  j)articles  of 
truth  that  lay  scattered  along  the  symbols  and  scholastic  forms  of  the 
church.  The  great  mass  of  believers  have  never  embraced  the  meta- 
physical refinements  of  creeds,  useful  as  these  refinements  are;  but 
have  singled  out,  and  fastened  upon,  and  held  firm,  those  Ciirdinal 
truths  which  the  Bible  has  hfted  up  and  turned  over  in  so  many  dif- 
ferent lights  as  to  make  them  the  more  conspicuous  by  their  very 
alteni.itions  of  figure  and  hue.  The  true  history  of  doctrine  is  to  be 
studied,  not  in  the  technics,  but  in  tlie  spirit,  of  the  church.     In  un* 


250         BEf  lEF   IN   MySTERlES   NOT   ESSENTIAL  TO   SALVATION. 

numhercd  cjises,  the  real  faith  of  Christians  has  been  purer  than  their 
written  statements  of  it.  Men,  women,  and  children  have  often 
decided  aright  when  doctors  have  disagreed,  and  doctors  themselves 
have  often  felt  aright  when  they  reasoned  amiss.  .  .  .  Many  who  now 
dispute  for  an  erroneous  creed  have,  we  trust,  a  richer  belief  imbedded 
in  then-  inmost  love.  —  Dr.  Edwards  A.  Park  :  TUeologij  of  the 
IiUdled,  4'c. ;  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  vii.  p.  560. 


If,  as  admitted  in  this  chapter,  the  authoritative  Teacher  of  his  own 
religion  avoided  all  metaphysical  speculations  on  the  essence  of  the  Deity, 
and  his  instructions  are  so  marked  for  their  simplicity  and  universality  as 
to  be  easily  comprehended  by  the  honest  and  inquiring,  whether  illiterate 
or  learned  ;  if  the  essential  truths  of  revelation  are  so  clearly  impressed 
on  the  pages  of  the  Bible,  and  especially  of  the  New  Testament,  as  to  be 
perfectly  intelligible  to  all  capacities,  and  to  be  recognized  in  some  measure 
by  all  members  of  the  Christian  church;  if  Christianity  is  not  a  religion  of 
speculative  or  theoretical  propositions,  but  of  vital  facts  and  practical 
principles;  if  there  are  no  mysteries  in  the  gospel  records,  except  those 
which  were  once  hidden  from  the  human  mind,  but  are  now  revealed  and 
understood;  if  the  faith  prescribed  by  the  great  Master,  avowed  by  the 
apostles,  and  enjoined  by  them  on  all  converts,  was  of  the  briefest  and  sim- 
plest nature,  implying  merely  an  acknowledgment  of  the  divine  mission  of 
Jesus,  a]id  a  profession  of  obedience  to  his  holy  laws;  and  if  a  belief  in  the 
dogma  of  a  Triune  God,  or  in  the  metaphysical  subtleties  of  creeds,  articles, 
and  confessions,  is  not  essential  to  salvation,  —  then  will  it  follow  that 
Christianity  is  not  Trinitarianism;  unless,  indeed,  a  Trinity  in  Unity,  and  a 
Unity  in  Trinity,  were  a  doctrine  so  plain  as  to  be  comprehensible  by  the 
common  understanding,  and  so  practical  as  to  be  capable  of  ameliorating 
the  heart  and  the  life;  forming,  moreover,  one  of  the  great  subjects  of  the 
instructions  of  Jesus,  and  the  preaching  of  the  apostles.  Then  will  it  also 
follow,  that  the  mysterious  dogmas  of  so-called  Orthodoxy,  even  though 
they  could  be  elaborately  inferred  from  a  combination  of  passages  drawn 
out  of  their  connection,  are  not  of  that  importance  which  they  are  repre- 
sented to  be  in  the  established  or  popular  formularies  of  faith. 

The  quaiificiitions  here  made,  however,  will  be  found  unnecessary;  for 
in  the  following  chapter,  and  in  other  portions  of  this  work,  we  shall,  with 
the  aid  of  eminent  writers  belonging  to  orthod(JX  churches,  prove  that  the 
dogma  of  a  Triune  God  is,  in  one  form  or  another,  either  obscure,  unintelli- 
gible, absunl,  or  self-contradictory;  and  that  it  derives  no  support  either 
from  the  express  declarations  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  prophets,  evangelists,  and 
apostles,  or  from  any  rational  mode  of  inference  employed  in  the  collecting 
arranging,  and  com|)aring  of  texts. 


257 


CHAPTER  V. 

TRINITARIANISM  EITHER  UNINTELLIGIBLE   OR   SELF- 
CONTRADICTORY. 


SECT.  I.  —  VARIOUS   AND   OPPOSITE   STATEMENTS   OR  DEFINITIONS  OP 
THE  DOCTRINE  OF   THE   TRINITY. 

When  men  have  several  faiths,  to  find  the  tme, 
We  only  can  the  aid  of  reason  ose. 

Sib  W.  Davenant 

In  pages  2  and  3,  we  gave  a  brief  abstract  of  the  principal  theories  of  a 
Triune  God  which  have  been  set  forth  in  the  writings  of  eminent  theolo- 
gians. In  the  present  section,  it  will  be  our  aim  to  exhibit  these  theories  in 
the  words  of  their  respective  authors,  or  of  those  to  whom  they  have  been 
attributed. 

We  shall,  in  the  first  place,  present  the  formxilas  of  two  of  the  most 
ancient  ecclesiastic  symbols,  —  the  Apostolical,  so  called,  and  the  Nicene; 
each  of  these  containing  a  profession  of  faith  in  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost;  namely,  in  a  kind  of  Trinity,  but  not  in  a  Triune  God; —  the  first 
and  oldest  of  these  creeds  being,  in  its  statement  of  the  Deity,  Unitarian; 
md  the  second,  Dualistic.  We  shall  then  quote  a  variety  of  propositions 
emanating  from  very  different  sources,  but  all  acknowledging  belief  in  the 
dogma  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity;  and  shall  endeavor  to  show  that  these  propo- 
sitions are  either  so  obscure  and  unintelligible  as  to  express  no  ideas,  and 
afford  no  ground  whatever  for  belief,  or  that  they  contain  such  affirmations 
and  such  principles  of  reasoning  as  lead  to  conclusions  very  different  from 
that  which  they  are  intended  to  recommend ;  that  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  so  far  from  their  subsisting  as  three  co-equal  and  co-eternal  pel  Rons 
in  one  God,  according  to  the  usual  representation  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine, 
are,  by  virtue  of  the  statements,  the  admissions,  or  the  reasonings  of  Trini- 
tarians themselves,  either  —  I.  Only  one  divine  person  or  agent  with  three 
names;  II.  Three  finite  intelligences,  —  eacli,  considered  in  himself,  imper 
feet,  but  all  constituting  one  God;  III.  Three  unequal  beings,  of  whom 
only  one  is  the  absolutely  True,  the  Self-existent,  the  Supremo  God;  or, 
IV.  Three  co-equal,  co-eternal,  and  infinite  Gods. 

92» 


258  STATEMENTS   OF  THE  TRINITY. 

It  is  painful  to  argue  on  this  subject;  but,  if  men  will  depart  from  the 
sublime  simplicity  of  Scripture  and  from  the  teachings  of  onlightened  rea- 
son, it  seems  almost  impossible  to  point  out  the  conclusions  fairly  deJucible 
from  tlieir  phriuseology,  without  using  such  expressions  as,  though  meant  to 
apply  only  to  the  figments  of  tiie  human  brain,  jar  on  those  sentiments  of 
profound  reverence  which  every  devout  mind  must  feel  in  speaking  of  Uie 
Most  High. 

All  Trinitarians  say,  reluctantly  or  unreluctantly,  that  "  there  are  tliree 
persons  in  one  God."  In  using  this  word  "  person,"  they,  of  coui-se,  annex, 
or  they  do  not  annex,  to  it  certain  ideas.  They  use  the  word  either  in  its 
ordinary  acceptation,  or  in  some  other  sense,  or  in  no  sense  at  all.  Seme 
Trinitarians  have  no  hesitation  in  defining  the  conceptions  which  they  attach 
to  it;  while  others  content  themselves  with  the  remark,  that  it  expresses  a 
distitifdon  in  the  Godhead  which  is  so  mysterious  as  to  be  incapable  of 
being  defined  or  explained.  In  the  latter  case,  the  proposition,  of  which  the 
word  "  person"  forms  the  chief  element,  is,  as  a  matter  of  course,  unintelli- 
gible. It  means  nothing.  It  consists  of  letters  or  sounds  which  have  no 
signification.  It  addresses  no  faculty  of  the  mind,  touches  no  afiection  of 
the  heart,  calls  into  action  no  aspiration  of  the  soul,  —  no  principle  of  faith 
or  hope  or  lovd. 

In  the  other  cases,  in  which  "  perjjn"  is  defined,  the  proposition  under 
notice  expresses  a  sentiment  which  am  be  pronounced  congruous  or  incon- 
gruous with  itso^f,  true  or  false,  accjrding  to  the  ideas  which  it  is  made  to 
represent,  aiTd  to  its  agreement  or  disagreement  with  the  principles  of  rea- 
son and  the  statements  of  rov^'ficion. 

I.  If,  in  tiie  proposition,  "  I  here  are  three  persons  in  one  God,"  by  the 
word  ''person"  i^  meant  u  character,  phase,  or  relation  of  the  Deity;  a 
peculiar  mode  in  which  God  discloses  himself  to  his  intelligent  offspring; 
a  manifestation  of  bome  one  of  his  characteristics  or  attributes,  —  then  will 
the  doctrine,  that  the  three  persons.  Creator,  Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier,  are 
one  God,  be  perfectl  /  intelligible,  and  consistent  with  itself;  for  tiie  one 
Supreme  Being  unquestionably  acts  towards  man  in  the  three  capacities  of 
a  creating,  a  redeeming,  and  a  sanctifying  God.  But  this  theory  of  a  Tri 
nity  in  Unity,  which  has  been  suggested  in  a  variety  of  forms,  though  all 
essentially  alike,  is  liable  to  strong  objections.  It  departs  from  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  word  "  person,"  without  assigning  a  satisfactory  reason.  It 
restricts  the  relations  of  the  Deity  to  three,  when,  in  point  of  fact,  they 
exceed  that  number:  for  God  is  not  only  our  Creator,  but  our  Governor; 
not  only  our  Redeemer,  but  our  Preserver;  not  only  our  Sanctifier,  but  our 
Consoler  and  our  Judge;  so  that  there  would  be  at  least  as  much  propriety 
in  saying  that  there  are  six  or  more  persons,  as  in  mamtaining  that  tliere  are 
only  three,  in  the  Godiiead.  Moreover,  the  terms  "  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,"  the  original  subject  of  the  proposition  (not  the  substituted  words 
"Creator,  Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier"),  when  spoken  of  as  mere  charactera 
or  relations  of  the  Deity,  and  not  as  intelligent  agents,  convey  no  ideas 
which  i!an  le  apprehended  by  the  human  mind.     The  Father,  the  Son,  or 


STATEMENTS  OF  THE  TRINITY.  259 

the  Spirit  of  a  relation  or  a  mode;  their  co-equality  and  co-essentiality;  the 
sell-existence  or  the  supremacy  of  the  first  relation,  the  eternal  generation 
of  the  second  ai.d  procession  of  the  third  relation,  —  each  of  these  beinc; 
God,  and  yet  constitutins;  altogether  only  one  God;  the  one  mode  or  mani- 
festation sending  the  others,  or  appointing  thera  to  certain  trusts,  and  all 
having  comnuinications  one  with  another  in  the  great  acts  of  creation,  pr>>- 
vidence,  and  redemption,  —  these  or  similar  representations  of  God,  which 
may  justly  be  inferred  from  the  language  used  by  believers  in  a  nominal 
Trinit}',  —  if  consistent  with  their  main  principle,  and  not  meaning  to  speak 
of  three  real,  conscious  agents  or  beings, —  are  so  repugnant  to  the  dictates 
of  common  sense  and  of  universal  language  as  to  justify  any  reasonable 
man  in  refusing  to  believe  a  doctrine  which  involves  such  absurdities. 

II.  and  III.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  affirmed  that  the  word  '•  person  " 
should  be  understood  to  denote  an  intelligent  agent,  but  that,  though  three 
intelligent  agents  exist  in  the  Godhead,  and  each  of  these  is  God,  they  are 
not  three  Gods,  but  only  one  God,  —  it  will  necessarily  follow,  —  unless, 
in  spite  of  the  denial,  we  understand  the  proposition  to  convey  the  incom- 
patible notion  that  three  infinite  Gods  are  only  one  infinite  God, —  that  the 
word  "  God"  is  used  here  in  two  very  different  senses;  and  that  the  propo 
sition  means  either,  1.  That  each  of  the  three  persons  or  agents  is  not  by 
himself  an  infinite  being,  but  is  called  God  in  a  lower  sense  of  the  term, 
and  that  the  Supreme  and  Self-existent  One  is  neither  the  Father  nor  the 
Son  nor  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  the  true  God  compounded  of  the  three  persons 
or  agents;  in  other  words,  that,  taken  individually,  neither  of  them  is  the 
true  God,  but  that,  collectively,  the  three  constitute  the  true  God;  the  three 
highest  but  finite  beings,  from  whom  all  existence  is  derived,  making  alto- 
gether one  Infinite  Being.  Or,  2.  Tliat  only  tlie  first  of  the  intelligent  agents 
in  the  Trinity  is  God,  agreeably  to  the  strictest  sense  of  that  word ;  that  he 
only  is  a  self-existent  and  independent  being,  —  the  second  and  the  third, 
derived  and  dependent;  but  that  these  belong  to  the  Godhead,  because 
they  were  superior  to  all  other  finite  beings,  and  had,  by  the  will  of  the 
Father,  and  in  a  peculiar  and  ineffable  manner,  partaken  of  all  liis  attri- 
butes, wi.h  the  single  exception  of  self-existence.  According  to  the  first 
of  these  alternatives,  a  manifest  contradiction  is  involved  in  the  terms  of 
the  proposition;  according  to  the  second,  the  three  persons  are  not  equal  to 
each  other.  Strange  that  a  doctrine  leading  to  such  conclusions  sliould 
have  been  avowedly  held  by  a  majority  of  Trinitarian  writers!    • 

IV.  If,  agreeably  to  another  phasis  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the 
word  "  person"  is  explained  to  mean  an  eternal,  infinite  agent,  mind,  spirit, 
or  bsing,  and  it  is  asserted  that  there  are  three  such  intelligent  existences  in 
the  Godhead,  equal  to  each  other  in  all  divine  perfections,  the  result  will  be, 
unless  the  words  have  a  meaning  directly  adverse  to  what  we  usuallj-  attri- 
bute to  them,  that  there  are  three  infinite  Gods;  and  that,  by  saying  thera 
is  only  one  God,  we  either  contradict  ourselves,  or  intend  merely  to  aflirm 
that  the  three  Gods  harmonize  so  completely  in  their  wills  and  modes  of  ope- 
ration, that  they  are  in  effect  but  one  essentially  Divine  Being, —  one  God. 


2  GO  THE  APOSTOLIC  TRINITY. 

We  have  not  attempted  to  trace  a  tithe  of  the  consequences  resulting 
from  the  various  explanations  of  the  word  "  person,"  as  used  bj-  its  sup- 
porters in  stating  the  doctrine  of  a  Triune  God ;  nor  have  we,  in  all  csises, 
employed  the  phraseolos;y  which  they  adopt.  The  copious  statements  of 
the  Trinity,  however,  from  orthodox  authorities,  with  some  of  the  objections 
made  to  them  by  other  professed  Trinitarians,  which  are  now  to  be  pre- 
sented, will,  we  think,  justify  what  has  been  already  said,  and,  in  a  great 
measure,  supply  what  has  been  omitted. 


^  1.   The  Apostolic  or  Uxitaiuan  Trinity. 

I  believe  in  God,  the  Father,  Almighty ;  and  in  Jesus  Christ,  his 
only-begotten  Son,  our  Lord,  who  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  buried,  arose  from 
the  dead  on  the  third  day,  ascended  to  the  heavens,  and  sits  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  Father,  whence  he  will  come  to  judge  the  li\ing 
and  the  dead ;  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  holy  church,  the  remission 
of  sins,  and  the  resun-ection  of  the  body.  —  The  Apostles'  Creed 
{so  called). 

The  "  Apostles'  Creed "  we  have  given  as  it  appears  in  a  note  to 
Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History  (vol.  i.  p.  80),  translated  by  Dr.  Muruock, 
who  says  that  this  was  "  the  common  form  of  it  in  the  fourth  century,  as 
used  in  most  churches  in  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa,  except  some  slight 
verbal  discrepancies."  It  was  once  the  prevailing  opinion,  that  this  creed 
was  actually  the  production  of  the  apostles;  but,  though  it  was  undoubt- 
edly in  use  at  a  very  early  age  of  the  church,  the  evidence  for  its  geimino- 
ness  as  an  apostolic  composition  seems  not  to  be  valid.  It  is,  however, 
with  the  exception  of  the  creeds  of  the  New  Testament,  the  simplest  of  all 
existing  forms  (see  pp.  243-6  of  the  present  work);  and  it  is  remarkable 
that  it  says  nothing  whatever  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity,  of  the  Deity  of  Christ, 
or  of  the  separate  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  strictly  and  tho- 
roughly Unitarian:  "I  believe  in  God,  the  Father,  Almighty;  and  in  Jesus 
Christ,  his  only-begotten  Son, .  .  .  ;  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 

REMARKS. 

As  for  the  parts  thereof  [of  the  Apostles'  Creed]  which  were  un- 
doubtedly most  ancient,  the  matter  of  them  is  so  m;uufestly  contiined 
in  the  Scripture,  and,  sujjposing  the  truth  of  Christianity  itself,  they 
are  so  certiin,  that  they  need  no  other  autiiority  to  support  them  tlian 
what  Christianity  itself  subsists  upon ;  and,  for  other  points  afterwards 
added,  they  ainnot,  by  \'irtue  of  being  inserted  there,  pretend  to 
apostolic  authority.  —  Dr.  Is.\ac  Barrow  :  Exposilion  of  the  Creed} 
in  Works,  p.  572. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  TRINITY.  261 

That  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  is  concluded  in  this  article  is  appa- 
rent, not  only  because  the  Nicene  Council  so  expressed  it  by  way  of 
exposition,  but  also  because  this  creed  in  the  churches  of  the  East, 
before  the  Council  of  Nice,  had  that  addition  in  it,  "  I  believe  in  ont 
God."  —  Bishop  Pearson:  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  Art.  I.  p.  32. 

It  will  be  convenient  to  take  notice  of  the  observation  of  Rufinus, 
"  that,  in  all  the  Eastern  creeds,  it  is,  '  I  believe  in  one  God,  the 
Father ; ' "  where,  if  by  the  Eastern  he  means  the  Nicene  or  Con- 
stiintinopolitan,  it  is  certainly  true ;  or,  if  he  means  the  ancient  creeds 
used  before  either  of  those,  it  is  true  not  only  of  the  Eastern,  but  of 
the  Western  also  ;  for  in  all  the  most  primitive  creeds,  whether  Latin 
or  Greek,  tliis  article  runs,  "  I  believe  in  one  God,"  or  "  in  the  only 
God ;  "  as  in  the  two  creeds  of  Ii-enajus,  and  three  of  Origen's,  iva  -debv, 
one  God ;  and  in  three  of  Tertullian's,  unum  or  unicum  Deum,  one  or 
the  only  God.  —  Sir  Peter  King  :  History  of  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
page  50. 

From  the  Apostles'  Creed  it  may  be  possible  to  deduce  the  catho- 
Uc  doctrine  of  the  Trinity;  but  assuredly  it  is  not  fully  expressed 
therein.  ...  It  has,  as  it  appears  to  me,  indirectly  favored  Aiianisra 
and  Socinianism.  —  S.  T.  Coleridge  :  Ldterary  Remains ;  in  Works, 
vol.  V.  pp.  229,  421. 

A  Trinity,  such  as  is  acknowled<;ed  by  Christian  Unitarians,  may  be 
easily  deduced  from  this  creed;  but  how  it  can  be  possible  to  deduce  from 
it  Trinitarianism,  or  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  is  to  us  as  in- 
conceivable as  it  would  be  to  infer  this  dogma  from  the  simple  declaration 
of  the  Apostle  Peter,  that  "  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  holy 
spirit  and  with  power." 

I  bel'eve  that  the  Apostles'  Creed  may  be  taken  as  a  specimen  of 
tiniths  held  by  the  general  consent  of  Christians ;  for  every  thing  there 
(except  the  descent  into  hell,  which  was  a  later  insertion)  is  in  almost 
the  very  words  of  Scripture.  -^  Dr.  Thomas  Arnold  :  Letter  156 ; 
in  Life  and  Correspondence,  p.  298. 

The  Apostles'  Creed  ...  is  a  most  valuable  monument  of  the 
chm'ch,  because  it  shows  what  in  the  early  ages  were  considered  as 
the  great,  the  peculiar,  and  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  gos])el,  viz., 
those  all-important  facts  wliich  are  summarily  recounted  in  this  creed. 
—  Dr.  Murdoch,  in  his  Translation  of  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical 
History,  vol.  i.  pp.  79,  80,  note. 

If  we  examuie  the  history  of  these  first  ages,  we  find  them  speak- 
ing, in  the  utmost  simplicity,  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost; 


262  THE  APOSTOLIC   TRINITY. 

but  having  still,  confessedly,  no  speculative  theory  or  dogmatic  scheme 
of  Trinity.  .  .  .  They  had  the  word  of  God  in  power,  but  not  as  yet  in 
science :  ChrLstiun  dogmatics  were  yet  to  he  invented.  If  you  desii'e 
to  see  the  form  in  which  they  summed  up  the  CliristLin  tnJth,  you 
have  it  in  what  is  called  the  Apostles'  Creed.  Tliis  beautilul  compend 
was  gradually  prepared  or  accumulated  in  the  age  prior  to  theology ; 
most  of  it,  probably,  in  the  time  of  the  ApostoUc  Fathers,  It  is 
purely  historic,  —  a  simjile  comjiendium  of  ChristLm  fact,  without  a 
trace  of  what  we  sometimes  call  doctrine ;  that  is,  notliing  is  dmwn 
out  into  speculative  propositions,  or  propounded  as  a  dogma,  in  terms 
of  science.  —  Dr.  Horace  Busunell  :  God  in  Christ,  pp.  286-7. 

Let  any  one  place  the  Apostles'  Creed  beside  that  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  and  see  what  a  vast  expansion  of  revealed  ti-uth 
has  taken  place.  The  former  was  all  that  the  mind  of  the  church,  in 
that  age  of  uifancy,  was  able  to  ehminate  and  systematize  out  of  the 
Scriptm-es ;  and  this  simple  statement  was  sufficient  to  satisfy  the 
imperfectly  developed  scientific  wants  of  the  early  church.  The  Latter 
creed  was  what  the  mind  of  the  church  was  able  to  construct  out  of 
the  elements  of  the  very  same  written  revelation,  after  fifteen  hundi-ed 
years  of  g tudy  and  reflection  upon  them.  The  "  words,"  the  doctrinal 
elements,  of  Scripture  are  "  spirit  and  life,"  and  hence,  like  all  spirit 
and  all  Hfe,  are  capable  of  expansion.  Upon  them,  the  historic  Chris- 
tian mind,  age  after  ago,  lias  expended  its  best  reflection ;  and  now 
the  result  is  an  enlarged  and  systematized  statement  such  as  the  early 
church  could  not  have  made,  and  did  not  need.  —  Professor  W. 
G.  T.  SllEDU,  in  tJie  Bihliotheca  Sacra  for  Jlpril,  1854;  vol.  xi. 
pp.  384-6. 

From  this  quotation  it  would  seem,  that,  the  nearer  we  approach  the  time 
of  the  apostles,  the  less  Triiiitariaiiism  is  found  in  the  Christian  ciiurch; 
and  that,  the  further  we  recede  from  it,  the  more  dogmatic,  ortliodox,  and 
metaphysical  the  doctrine  becomes.  The  mind  of  the  early  Christians  was 
too  sim|)lc  and  unsophisticated  to  discern  in  the  Scriptures  the  doctrine  of 
a  Trmiie  God;  and  it  was  only  by  degrees,  after  centuries  of  refieetion  had 
been  emjjloyed  in  systematizinp;  the  Bible,  that  men  and  women  could  elimi- 
nate the  mystery  of  a  divine  plurality  from  the  words  of  Moses  and  Christ, 
"  Jehovah,  our  God,  is  one  Jehovah  ;  "  and  a  Trinity  of  eternal  persons  from 
the  writings  of  those  who  constantly  inculcated  the  great  trnths  that  there 
is  but  one  God,  the  Father;  and  one  liOrd,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  and  Ser- 
vant of  God,  —  the  Man  of  Nazareth,  who  was  raised  up,  commissicned, 
api)roved,  and  anointed  by  the  Father  to  act  as  the  Teacher  and  Kegenerator 
of  the  human  race. 


THE  NICENE  TRINITY.  263 


^  2.  The  original  Nicene  Trinity. 

We  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father,  Almighty,  the  Maker  of  all 
things  visible  and  invisible :  and  in  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God,  begotten  of  the  Father,  onlj-begotten  (that  is)  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Father ;  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  very  God  of  very 
God ;  begotten,  not  made ;  of  the  same  substmce  with  the  Father ; 
by  whom  all  things  were  made  that  are  in  heaven  and  that  are  in 
earth ;  who  for  us  men,  and  for  our  salvation,  descended,  and  was 
incarnate,  and  became  man ;  suffered,  and  rose  again  the  third  day ; 
ascended  into  the  heavens ;  and  will  come  to  judge  the  living  and  the 
dead :  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  those  who  say  that  there  was  a 
time  wlien  he  was  not,  and  that  he  was  not  before  he  was  begotten, 
and  that  he  was  made  out  of  nothing,  or  affirm  that  he  is  of  any  other 
substance  or  essence,  or  that  the  Son  of  God  is  created,  and  mutable 
or  changeable,  the  catholic  church  doth  pronounce  accursed.  —  Nicene 
Creed,  as  given  by  Dr.  Murdoch  in  his  Translation  of  Mosheiin's 
Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  i.  p.  293,  note. 

Dr.  MuRDOCK  says  that  "  the  creed  used  in  the  Catholic,  Lutheran,  and 
English  churches,  and  called  the  Nicene  Ci-eed,  is  in  reality  the  creed  set 
forth  by  the  Council  of  Constantinople  in  the  year  381,"  and  "  is  considera- 
bly more  full  than  the  original  Nicene  Creed." 

This  creed,  which  was  established  at  the  Council  of  Nice,  A.D.  325, 
somewhat  approximates  to  the  orthodox  belief  now  professed;  but  it  makes 
no  mention  of  the  co-equality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  the  personality  or 
Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  a  Trinity  in  Unity.  Like  the  "Apostles' 
Creed,"  it  is  Unitarian  in  making  a  profession  of  faith  in  one  God,  the 
Father,  and  in  the  derived  existence  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ;  but  it  so 
far  departs  from  this  doctrine  as  to  introduce  an  article  of  belief  in  another 
Deity, —  the  uncreated  Deity  of  Christ.  In  other  words,  it  propounds,  as 
we  conceive,  a  Duality  of  Gods,  —  one  of  the  Gods  bt;ing  derived  from  the 
other;  and  ends  by  pronouncing  a  curse  against  those  who  cannot  help 
thinking  and  asserting  that  this  portion  of  the  creed  is  neither  apostolical 
nor  rational. 


This,  I  say,  our  Christian  Platonist  supposes  to  be  much  more 
wonderful,  that  this  so  great  and  abstruse  a  mystery,  of  three  eternal 
hyposti^ses  in  the  Deity,  should  thus  by  pagan  philosophers,  so  long 
before  Christianity,  have  been  asserted  as  the  principle  and  original 
of  the  whole  world ;  it  bemg  more  indeed  than  was  acknowledged  by 
the  Nicene  fathers  tliemselves ;  they  then  not  so  much  as  determininsr 


2G4  TUE  CONSTANTINOrOLITAN   TRINITY. 

thut  the  Holy  Gliost  was  an  hyi)ostasis,  much  less  that  he  was  God.  — 
Dii.  It.  CuDWOKTii :  Iiddled.  Sjjst.  of  the  Universe,  vol.  i.  p.  779. 

The  Nicene  Symbol  .  .  .  presents  the  Father  as  the  Moruf,  the 
Divinity  or  proper  Godhead  in  and  of  himself  exclusively :  it  repre- 
sents liim  as  the  Fons  et  Principium  of  the  Son,  and  therefore  gives 
him  superior  power  and  glory.  It  does  not  even  assert  the  cLiims  of 
the  Klessed  Spirit  to  Godhead,  and  therefore  leaves  room  to  doubt 
whether  it  means  to  recognize  a  Trinity,  or  only  a  Duality.  .  .  .  The 
Nicene  Sjmbol,  then,  does  not  appear  plamly  and  expUcitly  to  ac- 
knowledge that  "there  are  three  persons  in  one  God,  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ; "  nor  that  "  these  three  are  one  God,  the 
same  in  substance,  and  equal  in  power  and  glory."  No  :  it  comes,  or 
seems  to  come,  far  short  of  this.  —  MosES  Stuakt,  in  Biblical 
Repositori/  for  April,  183  j  ;  vol.  v.  j^p.  317-18. 


§  3.   The  Constantinopolitan  TEiNrrv. 

I  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  heaven  and 
earth,  and  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible :  and  in  one  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  onl)-begotten  Son  of  God ;  begotten  of  his  Father  before 
all  worlds ;  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  very  God  of  very  God ; 
begotten,  not  made ;  being  of  one  substance  with  the  Father ;  by 
whom  all  things  were  made ;  who  for  us  men,  and  for  our  salvation, 
came  down  from  heaven ;  and  was  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of 
the  Virgin  JSIary ;  and  was  made  man ;  and  was  crucified  also  for  us 
under  Pontius  Pilate  :  he  suffered,  and  was  buried ;  and  the  third 
day  he  rose  again,  according  to  the  Scriptures;  and  ascended  into 
heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father ;  and  he  shall 
come  again  with  glory  to  judge  both  the  quick  and  the  dead;  whose 
kingdom  sliall  have'^o  end.  And  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
Lord  and  Giver  of  life,  who  proccedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son ; 
who  with  tlie  Father  and  the  Son  together  is  worshipped  and  glori- 
fied ;  who  spake  by  the  prophets.  And  I  believe  one  Ciitholic  and 
apostolic  church ;  I  acknowledge  one  baptism  for  the  remission  of 
siiis ;  and  I  look  for  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the  life  of  the 
world  to  come.     Amen.  —  CoNSTANTlNOPOLlTAN  Crked. 

Tliis  creed,  which  we  tiike  from  the  English  "  Book  of  Common  Prayer," 
is  the  Nicene,  enlarged  by  tiie  Council  of  Constantinople,  and  mentioning^ 
among  other  particulars,  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  Fathei. 
'I'hu  words,  "  and  the  Son,"  were  not  aildoil  till  ii  considerable  time  after. 


THE  TRINITY   OF   UNEQUAL   PERSONS.  265 


§  4.   The  Trinity  of  Unequal  Persons  or  Gods. 

This  kind  of  Trinity,  to  ihe  titling  of  whicli  many  would  object,  but 
whicli  appears  to  us  strictly  characteristic  of  it,  will  be  found  to  bear  & 
strong  likeness  to  that  of  the  Nicene  and  the  Constantinopolitan  Creed;  but 
is  placed  separatel}'  here,  because  it  gives  a  peculiar  prominence  to  the 
Superiority  of  the  Father  over  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  probably 
rejiresents  the  general  opinion  of  Christians  at  the  present  day,  as  well  as 
of  the  fathers  who  flourished  at  or  near  the  time  when  the  Nicene  Creed 
■was  established;  thougli,  in  writing  avowedly  against  Unitarianism,  com- 
paratively few  would  now  be  willing  to  make  so  express  a  recognition  of 
inequality  as  is  observable  in  the  following  extracts. 

We  must  not  so  far  endeavor  to  involve  ourselves  in  the  darkness 
of  this  mystery  as  to  deny  that  glory  which  is  clearly  due  unto  the 
Father ;  whose  pre-eminence  undeniably  consisteth  in  this,  that  he  is 
God,  not  of  any  other,  but  of  himself  j  and  that  there  is  no  other 
person  who  is  God,  but  is  God  of  him.  It  is  no  diminution  to  the 
Son  to  say  he  is  trom  anothei',  for  liis  very  name  imports  as  much ; 
Ijut  it  were  a  diminution  to  the  Father  to  speak  so  of  him ;  and  there 
must  be  some  pre-eminence  where  there  is  place  for  derogation.  What 
the  Father  is,  he  is  from  none ;  what  the  Son  is,  he  is  from  him : 
wluit  tlie  fii-st  is,  he  giveth ;  what  the  second  is,  he  receiveth.  The 
first  is  a  Father  indeed  by  reason  of  his  Son,  but  he  is  not  God  by 
reason  of  liim;  whereas  the  Son  is  not  so  only  in  regard  of  the 
Father,  but  also  God  by  reason  of  the  same.  .  .  .  This  priority  doth 
pro])erly  and  natuiully  result  from  the  diraie  paternity ;  so  that  the 
Son  must  necessarily  be  second  imto  the  Father,  from  whom  he 
receiveth  his  origination,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  unto  the  Son.  Neither 
can  we  be  thought  to  want  a  sufficient  foundation  for  this  priority  of 
the  first  person  of  the  Trinity,  if  we  look  upon^the  numerous  testi- 
monies of  the  ancient  doctors  of  the  church,  who  have  not  stuck  to 
call  the  Father  the  Origin,  the  Cause,  the  Author,  the  E,oot,  the 
Fountain,  and  the  Head  of  the  Son,  or  the  whole  Divinity.  .  .  .  The 
jjroper  notion  of  the  Father  m  whom  we  believe  is  this,  that  he  is  a 
person  subsisting  eternidly  in  the  one  infinite  essence  of  the  Godhead ; 
wliich  essence  oi"  subsistence  he  hath  received  from  no  other  person, 
but  hath  communicated  the  same  essence,  in  which  himself  subsisteth, 
by  generation  to  another  person,  who  by  that  generation  is  the  Son.  — 
Bisuop  Pk.\rson  :  Exposition  of  tfie  Creed,  Art.  L  pp.  49,  50,  5%, 

23 


266  THE  TRINITY  OF   UNKQUAL  PERSONS. 

There  Is  eAidently  some  subordimitiou  amongst  these  three  per- 
sons ;  becixuse  the  Father  possesses  the  diraie  nature  from  liimself,  but 
the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  have  it  from  tlie  Father,  who  is  therefore  the 
Fountain  and  Origin  of  their  Divinity.  .  ^  .  In  dignity  and  power 
the  Father  is  superemincnt  in  respect  to  the  Son,  and  tlie  Father  and 
Son  in  respect  to  the  Holy  Spirit ;  since  it  is  more  honorable  to  beget 
than  to  be  begotten,  to  cause  to  proceed  than  to  proceed.  The  sender 
has  also  power  over  the  person  sent ;  but  the  messenger,  not  over  him 
by  whom  he  is  commissioned.  But  God  the  Father  is  everywhere 
said  to  have  sent  the  Son ;  and  the  Son  refers  all  things  tliat  he  does 
to  liis  Father  as  the  author :  see  John  vi.  57 ;  v.  19,  20,  30.  The 
Scripture,  accordingly,  terms  the  Father  sometimes  "  God  "  in  an  abso- 
lute sense,  John  iii.  IG.  Horn.  viii.  31,  32.  Gal.  iv.  4.  1  John  iv.  9,  10, 
et  al. ;  and  sometimes  "  the  God  of  Jesus  Christ,"  John  xx.  17.  Heb. 
i.  9 ;  and  the  Son  himself  plainly  says  that  the  Father  is  greater  tlian 
he,  John  xiv.  28.  —  Philip  Limborch  :  Theologia  Christiana, 
lib.  ii.  cap.  17,  §  25. 

Though  all  created  beings  are  the  creatures  of  the  Father,  of  the 
'Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  catholic  faith  requires  us  to  own 
the  Father  as  the  Source  and  Head  in  the  work  of  creation,  and  the 
two  other  persons  as  acting  in  and  executing  the  same  work,  but  iu 
harmonious  subordination  to  hira  as  the  Head  and  Centre  of  Divinity. 
...  Of  these  persons,  only  one  can  be  self-existent  and  unoriginated, 
the  Cause  and  Original  of  all  things,  who  is  denominated  God  the 
Father :  but  the  Father  alone  is  self-existent  and  unoriginated ;  there- 
fore the  Son  must  have  derived  his  being  and  essence  from  the  Father. 

The  docti'ine  here  delivered  accords  with  the  sentiments  of 

the  most  learned  and  zealous  defenders  of  the  orthodox  fiiith  in  every 
age.  —  GiiORGE  HoLDEN  :  Scripture  Testimonies,  pp.  336,  437,  444. 

REM  AUKS. 

Whoever  asserts  that  the  Son  owes  his  essence  to  the  Father, 
denies  him  to  be  sclf-oxistcnt.  .  .  .  K  we  admit  the  whole  essence  to 
be  solely  in  the  Father,  either  it  will  bo  divisible,  or  it  will  be  t;iken 
away  from  the  Son ;  and  so,  being  despoiled  of  his  essence,  he  will  be 
only  a  titular  God.  The  divine  essence,  according  to  these  triHers, 
belongs  solely  to  the  Father,  inasmuch  as  he  alone  possesses  it,  and  is 
the  author  of  the  essence  of  the  Son.  Thus  the  Divinity  of  the  Son 
will  be  a  kind  of  emanation  from  the  essence  of  God,  or  a  derivation 
of  a  part  from  the  wliole.  .  .  .  Although  we  confess,  in  point  of  order 


THE  TRINITY  OF   UNEQUAL  PERSONS.  2G7 

and  degree,  that  the  Father  is  the  Fountuin  of  the  Deity,  yet  we  pro- 
nounce it  a  detestable  figment  that  the  essence  belongs  exclusively  to 
the  Father,  as  though  he  were  the  author  of  the  Deity  of  the  Son ; 
beaiuse,  on  this  sujjposition,  either  the  essence  would  be  dinded,  or 
Christ  Avould  be  only  a  titular  and  imaginary  God.  If  they  admit  that 
the  Son  is  God,  but  inferior  to  the  Father,  then  in  him  the  essence 
must  be  begotten  and  created,  which  in  the  Father  is  unbegotten  and 
micreated.  —  JoiiN  Calvin  :  Institutes  of  the  Christian  Religion, 
book  i.  chap.  xiii.  23,  24. 

If  we  are  not  to  condemn  and  damn  the  ancients  for  embracing  an 
opinion  which  supposes  three  distinct  substances,  and,  by  consequence, 
three  Gods,  —  though  this  name  be  given  the  Father  m  a  more  exalted 
sense,  and  hereby  the  unity  of  the  Supreme  Being  secured,  —  neither 
ought  we  to  condemn  the  present  Christian  world  for  owning  only 
one  mdividual  substance  in  the  persons  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit  ...  If  it  is  thought  hard  to  accuse  the  ancients  as  being 
Tritheists,  neither  ought  we  to  term  the  present  Christians,  Sabelhans 
or  SocinLans.  —  Le  Clerc  :  Abstract  of  Dr.  darkens  Polemical 
Writings,  p.  127. 

In  this  paragraph,  Le  Clerc  is  speaking  of  the  opinions  that  were  held 
by  those  called  orthodox  who  lived  at  or  near  the  time  of  the  assembling  of 
the  Nicene  Council. 

We  find  that  all  the  fathers  before,  at,  and  after  the  Council  of 
Nice,  who  harmonize  with  the  sentiments  there  avowed,  do  with  one 
consent  declare  the  Father  only  to  be  ahro-Qeog,  or  self-existent  God. 
The  Greek  ones  speak  of  the  Father  as  the  cause  of  the  being  of  the 
Son :  the  ancient  Latin  theologians  name  the  Father  auctor,  radix, 
fans,  caput  [author,  root,  fountain,  head],  in  respect  to  the  Son.  The 
Greek  fathers  again  ascribe  to  him  iizepoxnv  [pre-eminence]  :  they 
speak  of  him  as  /isi^ov  [superior],  but  of  the  Son  as  devTEpog  ^eoc  [an 
inferior  God].  The  Father  they  style  "  without  beginning ;  "  and  they 
speak  of  the  Son  as  springing  from  him.  It  lies,  moreover,  on  the 
very  face  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  that  it  acknowledges  the  Father  only 
as  the  Moi'()f  of  the  Godhead :  "  We  believe  in  One  God,  the  Father 
Mmighiy,  Maker  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible ;  and  in  one 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  the  only-begotten  of  the  Fa- 
ther," &c.  Jesus  Christ,  as  here  presented  to  us,  is  not  the  one  God, 
but  the  one  Lord  who  was  begotten  of  the  substance  of  the  one 
God  or  the  Father,  &c.     Tie  Father,  then, as  presented  in  this  creed, 


268  THE  ATHANASIAN  TRINITY. 

is  not  merely  a  distinct  jierson,  i.e.  not  merely  one  of  the  three  per- 
sons, and  on  an  equality  with  the  other  two ;  but  he  is  the  origuml, 
inde])endent,  self-existent  Movuf  or  Unity,  who  constitutes  the  Foiis  et 
Principiuin  of  all  true  Godhead.  —  Abridged  from  MosES  Stuakt, 
in  Biblical  Repository  for  Jlpril,  1835 ;  vol.  v.  pp.  282-3. 


§  5.  The  Athaxasian  Trinity;  ok,  the  Trinity  of  Co-equal 
Peiisons. 

Whosoever  will  be  saved,  before  all  things  it  is  necessary  that  he 
bold  the  catholic  faith ;  which  faith  except  every  one  do  keep  whole 
and  undefiled,  without  doubt  he  shall  perish  everkstingly.  And  the 
catholic  faith  is  this :  That  we  worship  one  God  in  Trinity,  and  Trinity 
in  Unity ;  neither  confounding  the  })ersons,  nor  dividing  the  substance. 
For-tliere  is  one  person  of  the  Father,  another  of  the  Son,  and  another 
of  the  Hoi}'  Ghost.  But  the  Godhead  of  the  Fathei",  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  is  all  one ;  the  glory  equal,  the  majesty  co-eternal. 
Such  as  the  Father  is,  such  is  the  Son,  and  such  is  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
the  Father  uncreate,  the  Son  uncreate,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  uncreate ; 
the  Father  incomprehensil)le,  the  Son  incomprehensible,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  incomprehensible ;  the  Father  eternal,  the  Son  eternal,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  eternal.  And  yet  there  are  not  three  eternals,  but  one 
eternal :  as  also,  there  are  not  three  incomprehensibles,  nor  thi"ee  im- 
created;  but  one  uncreated,  and  one  incomprehensil)le.  So  likewise 
the  Father  is  Almighty,  the  Son  Almiglity,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  Al- 
mighty; and  yet  they  are  not  three  Almighties,  but  one  Almighty. 
So  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God; 
and  jet  they  are  not  three  Gods,  but  one  God.  So  likewise  the  Fa- 
ther is  Lord,  the  Son  Lord,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  Lord ;  and  yet  not 
three  Lords,  but  one  Lord.  For  like  as  we  are  compelled  by  the 
Christian  verity  to  acknowledge  every  person  by  himself  to  be  God 
and  Lord;  so  are  we  forl)idden  by  the  catlioHc  religion  to  say  tliere  be 
three  Gods  or  three  Lords.  The  Father  is  made  jf  none,  neither 
created  nor  begotten.  The  Son  is  of  the  Father  alone ;  not  made  nor 
created,  but  begotten.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son ;  neither  made  nor  created  nor  begotten,  but  proceeding.  So 
there  is  one  F'athcr,  not  three  Fathers ;  one  Son,  not  three  Sons ;  one 
Holy  Ghost,  not  three  Holy  Ghosts.  And  in  this  Trinity  none  is 
afore  or  after  other,  none  is  greater  or  less  tlum  anotlier;   but  tlia 


TUE   ATHANASIAN   TRINITY.  269 

whole  three  persons  are  co-etenial  together,  and  co-equal.  So  that  in 
all  things,  as  is  aforesaid,  the  Unity  in  Trinitj'  and  the  Trinity  in  Unity 
is  to  be  worshipped.  He  therefore  that  Avill  be  saved  must  thus  think 
of  the  Trinity.  Furthermore,  it  is  necessary  to  everlasting  salvation 
that  he  also  believe  rightly  the  incarnation  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
For  the  right  faith  is,  that  we  believe  and  confess  that  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  tlie  Son  of  God,  is  God  and  man :  God,  of  the  substance  of  the 
Father,  begotten  before  the  worlds ;  and  man,  of  the  substance  of  his 
mother,  born  in  the  world  :  perfect  God  and  perfect  man,  of  a  reasona- 
ble soul  and  human  flesh  subsisting ;  equal  to  the  Father  as  toucliing 
his  Godliead,  and  inferior  to  the  Father  as  touching  his  manhood. 
AVho  altliough  he  be  God  and  man,  yet  he  is  not  two,  but  one  Christ  5 
one,  not  by  conversion  of  the  Godhead  into  flesh,  but  by  taking  of  the 
manhood  into  God ;  one  altogether,  not  by  confusion  of  substance,  but 
by  unity  of  person.  For  as  the  reasonable  soul  and  flesh  is  one  man, 
so  God  and  man  is  one  Christ.  Who  sufiered  for  our  salvation, 
descended  into  hell,  rose  again  the  third  day  from  the  dead.  He 
ascended  into  heaven ;  he  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  God 
Almighty;  from  whence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead.  At  whose  coming,  all  men  shall  rise  again  with  their  bodies, 
and  shall  give  account  for  their  own  works ;  and  they  that  have  done 
good  shall  go  into  life  everlasting,  and  they  that  have  done  evil  into 
everlasting  fire.  This  is  the  catholic  faith ;  which  except  a  man  be- 
lieve faithfully,  he  cannot  be  saved-  —  The  Athanasian  Ckeed 
[^fo  called). 

This  creed,  which  is  generally  acknowledged  not  to  have  been  written 
by  Athanasius,  we  have  quoted  from  the  "  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  as 
used  by  the  Church  of  England.  According  to  Professor  Stuart  ( Miscel- 
lanies, p.  70),  "it  was  received  in  France  about  A.D.  850;  in  Spain  and 
Germany,  about  1030.  In  some  parts  of  Italy  it  was  current  about  960;  at 
Rome  it  was  admitted  in  1014." 

The  "  Athanasian  Creed  "  is  obviously  more  antagonistic  to  Unitarian- 
ism  than  those  formed  at  the  Councils  of  Nice  and  Constantinople;  for  it 
exliibits  in  a  very  prominent  manner  the  co-equality  of  three  persons  in  tlie 
Godhead.  But,  as  the  unhallowed  temerity  and  uncharitable  zeal  of  its 
autlior  led  him  to  enter  ground  on  which  the  sacred  writers  never  dared  to 
tread,  and  to  explain,  with  minute  particularity,  mysteries  quite  unknown 
to  prophet  or  apostle,  —  he  naturally  lays  down  propositions  which  are 
repugnant  to  each  other,  and  ascribes  to  the  divine  persons  modes  of  exist- 
ence which  evidently  imply  the  inferiority  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  to  the 
Father.  The  consequences  resulting  from  the  adverse  properties  of  equality 
and  dependence  will  be  exhibited  in  several  of  the  following  extract* 

23* 


270  THE  ATHANASIAN   TRINITY. 

KEMAUKS. 

[1]  It  must  be  considered  as  a  serious  defect  in  a  creed,  if,  exclud- 
ing subordination,  -without  mentioning  any  particular  form,  it  gives 
no  hint  of  any  other  form  in  whicli  it  admits  it.  The  only  minus 
admitted  by  the  Athanasian  Creed  is  the  inferiority  of  Christ's 
humanity  to  the  Divinity  generally ;  but  both  Scrij)ture  and  the 
Nicene  Creed  teach  a  subordination  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  inde- 
pendent of  the  incarnation  of  tlie  Son.  Now,  this  is  not  inserted; 
and  therefore  the  denial  in  the  assertion, "  None  is  greater  or  less  than 
another,"  is  universal,  and  a  plain  contradiction  of  Christ  spe;iking  of 
himself  as  the  co-eternal  Son,  "  jMy  Father  is  gi-eater  than  L"  —  Of 
the  unauthorized  creed  of  the  fierce  individual,  whom  from  ignorance 
of  his  real  name  we  may  call  Pseudo-Athanasius,  I  agree  with  many 
learned  and  orthodox  fathers  of  the  English  church  in  ^\ishing  that 

"  we  were  well  rid." [2]   The  Athanasian  Creed  is,  in  my 

judgment,  heretical  in  the  omission  or  implicit  denial  of  the  Filial 
subordination  in  the  Godhead,  wliich  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Nicene 
Creed,  and  for  wliicli  Bull  and  Waterland  have  so  fervently  and 
triumphantly  contended ;  and  by  not  holding  to  which,  Slierlock 
staggered  to  and  fro  between  Tritheism  and  Sabellianism.  —  S.  T. 
COLKRIDGE. 

The  first  of  these  quotations  is  taken  from  Coleridge's  "  Literary 
Remains  "  ( Works,  vol.  v.  pp.  385,  53C) ;  the  secoiul,  from  his  "  Table  Talk  " 
(Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  290).  If  we  do  not  misapprehend  the  writer,  the  Atha- 
nasian Creed  is  heretical  because  it  labors  to  establish  the  perfect  equality 
of  the  persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  thus  lavors  the  doctrine  of  three  Gods. 
The  quotations  that  follow  are  of  a  dilTerent  character,  and  look  at  this  creed 
from  another  point  of  view. 

Let  us  examine  the  fundamental  points  in  the  representations  of 
the  Athanasian  Symbol,  The  Father  and  the  Son  are  said  to  be 
distinguislied  by  the  fact  that  the  Father  is  eternally  unbegotten ; 
the  Son  is  from  all  eternity  begotten,  but  never  begets.  Now,  one 
may  represent  eternal  generation  to  be  as  remote  as  possible  from  all 
temjjorary  and  organic  generation,  yet  there  remains  one  idea,  after 
all,  which  never  can  be  removed  from  this  view  of  the  subject ;  and 
this  is,  that  the  relation  of  dependence  is  of  necessity  conveyed  by 
such  modes  of  expression.  Now,  if  the  Father  has  from  eternity 
exerted  his  power  to  beget  the  Son,  and  the  Son  has  never  exerted  a 
power  to  beget  any  person  of  the  Godliead  (wliich  of  itself  seems  to 
make  a  jjrcat  dissimilarity  between  the  first  and  second  persons  of  tlie 


THE  ATHANASIAN   TRINITY.  271 

Godhead) ;  and,  moreover,  if  there  is  no  relation  of  dependence 
between  the  Son  and  another  person  of  the  Godhead,  -which  can  serve 
as  an  equivalent  for  the  relation  of  dependence  that  exists  between 
the  Father  and  Son,  —  then  does  it  seem  plainly  to  follow,  that  the 
power  of  the  Father  is  greater  than  that  of  the  Son,  and  the  glory 
■which  the  Father  has  in  respect  to  the  Son  must  be  greater  than  the 
glory  which  the  Son  has  in  respect  to  the  Father.  The  same  must 
be  time  also  in  respect  to  the  Spirit ;  and  this,  whether  we  assume, 
•with  the  Greek  church,  that  he  jn-oceeds  from  the  Father  only ;  or, 
with  the  Latin  one,  that  he  ])roceeds  both  fi-om  the  Father  and  the 
Son.  In  the  last  case,  the  Son  is  supposed  to  have  only  one  incapa- 
city, compai-ed  with  the  Father  [\iz.,  that  of  not  begetting'] ;  in  the 
former  [i.e.  where  the  Spirit  is  said,to  proceed  from  the  Father  onlj^:], 
he  has  a  double  incapacity  [viz.,  that  of  not  begetting,  and  that  of  not 
causing  the  procession  of  the  Spirit],  in  case  nothing  proceeds  from 
him,  and  he  begets  nothing.  At  all  events,  the  Spirit  must  be  sup- 
posed to  have  this  twofold  incapacity  [for  he  neither  begets,  nor  causes 
procession]  ;  and  he  is  moreover  in  a  relation  of  dependence  ;  for  the 
proceeding  from,  or  the  being  breathed  forth,  necessarily  implies  a 
relation  of  dependence,  as  well  as  the  being  begotten.  It  is,  more- 
over, a  dependence  different  from  that  which  belongs  to  the  fii-st  and 
second  persons  of  the  Godhead ;  although  no  one,  indeed,  can  tell 
what  it  is  in  itself,  or  how  it  differs  from  the  being  begotten.  — 
SCHLEIERMACIIER,  OS  translated  by  Stuaii,  in  Biblical  Repository 
for  Jlpril,  1835  ;  vol  v.  pp.  270-1. 

Many  have  supposed,  that  the  Son,  the  second  person  in  the  Tri- 
nity, is,  in  some  mysterious  manner,  begotten  of  the  Father ;  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  third  person  in  the  Trinity,  is,  in  the  same  mysterious 
manner,  eternally  proceeding  frOm  the  Father  and  Son  both.  .  .  .  But 
...  to  suppose  that  the  Son,  with  respect  to  his  di\ine  natm-e,  was 
begotten  of  the  Father,  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeded  from  the 
concurrence  of  the  Father  and  Son,  is  to  suppose  that  a  Trinity  of 
persons  is  not  founded  in  the  divine  nature,  but  merely  in  the  divine 
wilL  For,  on  tliis  supjjosition,  if  the  Father  had  not  pleased  to  beget 
the  Son,  and  the  Father  and  Son  had  not  pleased  to  produce  the 
Holy  Ghost,  there  could  have  been  no  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  God- 
head. Besides,  this  opinion  sets  the  Son  as  far  below  the  Father  as  a 
creature  is  below  the  Creator,  and  sets  the  Holy  Ghost  as  far  below 
the  Son  as  he  is  below  the  Father,  or  rather  it  mokes  the  Holy  Ghost 
4  creature  of  a  creature !     There  are  no  ideas  which  we  Ciui  aiHx  tc 


272  THE  ATHANASIAN   TRINITY. 

the  words  "  beget,"  "  produce,"  or  "  proceed,"  but  must  involve  in 
them  an  infinite  incqimlity  between  the  three  sacred  persons  in  the 
adorable  Trinity.  On  this  ground,  we  feel  constrained  to  reject 
the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  and  the  etei-nal  procession  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  such  mysteries  as  cannot  be  distinguished  from  real 
absurdities,  and  as  such  doctrines  as  strike  at  the  foundation  of  tlie 
true  doctrine  of  three  equally  di\-ine  persons  in  one  God.  —  Dr. 
Nathaxaki,  Emmoxs  :  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  114. 

Who  will  venture  to  say,  that  any  of  the  definitions  heretofore 
given  of  personality  in  the  Godhead  in  itself  considered  —  I  mean 
such  definitions  as  have  their  basis  in  the  Nicene  or  Athanasian  Creed 
—  are  intelligible  and  satisfactory  to  the  mind  ?  At  least,  I  can  truly 
say  that  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  them,  if  they  do  in  fact  exist ; 
nor,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  any  one  been  able,  by  any  comment;xry  on 
them,  to  render  them  clear  and  satisfactory. ...  If  I  say  in  words,  that 
Christ  and  the  Spirit  are  God,  and  very  God ;  and  say  this  ever  so 
strongly  and  ever  so  often ;  and  yet  assign  to  them  attributes  or  a 
condition  which  after  all  makes  them  dependent,  and  represents  them 
as  derived  and  originated,  —  then  I  am  in  fact  no  real  beUever  in  the 
doctrine  of  true  equality  among  the  persons  of  the  Godhead ;  or  else 
I  use  expressions  out  of  their  lawful  and  accustomed  sense,  and  lose 
myself  amid  the  sound  of  words,  while  things  are  not  examined  and 
defined  with  scrupulous  care  and  accuracy.  ...  In  whatever  shape  we 
present  the  idea  of  derivation,  —  whether  we  call  it  by  the  name  of 
"  generation,"  "  procession,"  "  emanation,"  or  by  any  other  like  a])pel- 
Lation,  —  still  the  idea  remains  of  dependence.  A  derived  God,  if 
words  are  allowed  to  have  their  approjjriate  meaning,  cannot  be  a 
self-existent  God ;  a  dependent  God  cannot  be  an  independent  one. 
We  may  assert  what  we  please  respecting  the  indescribable,  un- 
speakable, wonderful  manner  of  generation  or  ])rocession;  we  may 
disclaim  all  similitudes  among  created  things  ever  so  much  or  so 
strongly ;  yet  all  this  goes  only  to  the  manner,  and  not  to  the  matter, 
of  the  thing.  The  latter  still  remains.  The  idea  of  dependence  and 
derivation  is  insejjarably,  and  by  absolute  necessity,  connected  with 
the  idea  of  generation  and  jirocession.  —  MosKS  SruAliT,  in  Biblical, 
Repository  for  .Ipril,  Ib'So ;  vol.  v.  pp.  277-8,  281-2. 

Anotlier  passage,  equally  strong  and  well  reasoned,  bj'  tlie  same  writer, 
against  tlie  eternal  generation  of  Clirii^t,  may  be  seen  in  Bibliotlieci  Sacra, 
Vol.  vii.  pp.  313-15.  His  Kxcursus  I.  on  Hum.  i.  4  coutains  also  some  excel- 
lent remarks  on  this  subject. 


THE  WESTMINSTER  TRINITY.  273 


\  6.  The  Westminster  Trinity. 

Ill  the  imity  of  the  Godhead  there  be  three  persons  of  one  sub- 
sliince,  poM'er,  and  eternity ;  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God 
tlie  Holy  Ghost.  The  Father  is  of  none,  neither  begotten  nor  pro- 
ceeding ;  the  Son  is  eternally  begotten  of  the  Father ;  the  Holy  Ghost, 
eternally  proceeding  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  —  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  U.  3. 

The  Westminster  Trinity,  the  Trinity  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  seems 
to  be  a  lineal  descendant  of  the  Athanasian,  and  to  possess  its  great  feature 
of  inconsistency  and  contradiction  in  representing  three  Gods  to  be  only 
one;  unless  by  "  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  "  is  understood  merely  harmony 
of  counsel  subsisting  between  the  three  divine  persons,  —  between  the 
underived  Father,  and  the  two  Gods  who  are  spoken  of  as  receiving  from 
him  their  existence.  The  grounds,  however,  of  objection  made  to  the  Scotch 
Confession,  in  the  foUowing  passage,  are  somewhat  different  from  those 
commonly  adduced  against  the  propositions  laid  down  in  the  creed  attri- 
buted to  Athanasius. 

REMARKS. 

"  One  substance : "  Where  is  the  authority  for  such  an  expression  ? 
What  is  the  meaning  of  it  ?  What  can  we  understand  by  the  sub- 
stance of  God  ?  It  has  been  explained  by  the  word  "  being."  That, 
certainly,  is  not  the  meaning  in  which  it  was  understood  by  the  com- 
pilers of  the  Confession.  In  their  mind,  it  referred  to  some  supposed 
sul)stratum,  or  foundation,  for  quaHties ;  some  philosophical,  metaphy- 
sical speculation,  distinguishing  the  qualities  of  a  being  from  the  being 
itself;  which  is  totally  unknown  to  the  word  of  God.  "  Eternally 
begotten  —  eternally  proceeding :  "  Here  is  a  distinction  made  be- 
tween the  mode  of  the  Son's  existence,  and  the  mode  of  the  Spirit's 
existence.  The  Son  is  represented  as  eternally  begotten  or  generated 
by  the  Father.  This  is  a  totally  different  doctrine  from  that  of  Christ's 
having  been  the  Son  of  God  from  eternity.  The  doctrine  here  tiiught 
is,  that  the  continued  mode  of  existence  of  his  divine  nature  is  being 
eternally  begotten  or  generated  by  the  Father;  and  this  mode  of 
existence  is  distinguished  from  the  Spirit's  mode  of  existence,  which 
is  represented  as  an  eternal  procession  ft-om  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
Now,  what  authority  is  there  for  such  a  distinction  in  the  word  of 
God  ?  Where  is  there  any  thing  approaching  the  expression,  "  eter- 
nally being  begotten  "?  The  Confession  refers  to  John  i.  14,  18,  for 
the  eternal  begetting  of  the  Son,  and  to  John  xv.  26  for  the  eternal 
procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;   but  neither  of  these  passages  have 


274  AXCIENT   AXD   MODKUN   THEORIES  OP 

one  sjllable  in  them  bearing  upon  such  a  subject  The  former  sajTi 
that  the  Son  is  the  only-begotten  of  the  Fatlier,  but  nothing  of  an 
etenia]  jjrolonged  begetting.  'Die  latter  says  that  Jesus  will  send  the 
Spirit  from  the  Father,  and  that  the  Spirit  proeeedeth  from  the  Father. 
But  this  manifestly  refers  to  his  coming  to  Christ's  people,  and  not  to 
the  mode  of  his  eternal  existence.  If  it  referred  to  the  mode  of  his 
existence,  it  would  seem  to  intimate  rather  tliixt  he  proeeedeth  from 
the  Father  only,  and  not  from  the  Son,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Greek  church.  But  Scripture  apjiears  to  me  to  be  entirely  silent  on 
the  sulyect.  —  James  Carlile  :  Tlie  Use  and  Abuse  of  Creeds  and 
Confessions,  pp.  60-1. 

BESIARKS   ox    THE  ANCIENT  AND   MODERN  THEORIES   OF   ETERNAL   GENB- 
KATION   AND   PROCESSION. 

According  to  them  [the  modified  \ievfs  and  more  cautious  state- 
ments of  modern  theologians],  the  Father  is  the  author  of  only  the 
subsistence,  i.e.  the  modus  exislendi  or  personality  of  the  Son  and 
Spirit ;  while  the  substance  or  essence  of  the  Godhead  is  numerically 
one  and  the  same  in  all  the  three  persons.  But  here,  too,  a  difficulty 
arises  of  somewhat  formidable  magnitude.  It  is  this :  Father  and 
Son  and  Spirit  are  conceded  to  be  numerically  one  and  the  same  in 
essence  or  sul)stance.  Yet,  if  we  are  to  credit  the  views  now  before 
us,  we  must  at  least  believe  that  the  Father  is  the  origin  or  author 
of  the  nwdus  existendi  of  the  Son  and  Spirit.  The  whole  reduces 
itself,  then,  simply  to  this,  \\z.,  that,  while  the  substance  of  the  Son 
and  Spirit  is  self-existent  and  independent,  and  the  same  with  that  of 
the  Father,  it  has  still  no  modus  existendi  but  that  which  the  Father 
gives  it.  But  how,  we  may  be  allowed  to  ask,  could  the  substance 
of  the  Son  and  Sj)irit  be  self-existent  and  indejjendent,  and  yet  be 
sujjposed  to  exist  without  any  modus  existendi  necessarily  attached  to 
it  ?  And  if  that  modus  cannot  by  any  possibility  be  even  imagined 
to  l)e  disconnected  from  the  existence  of  the  substance  itself,  and 
cannot  possibly  have  ever  been  as  it  were  in  abeyance  and  waiting  to 
be  determined,  how  could  that  modus  spring  from  the  Father,  and  not 
come  from,  or  be  necessarily  connected  with,  self-existent  substance  it- 
,sclf  ?  Or,  to  put  the  matter  in  another  light,  how  is  it  that  the  Father, 
being  one  and  the  same  substance  numerically  with  the  Son  and  Sjji- 
rit,  could  have  the  attribute  of  uyevi'jjaia  [unbegottenness],  while  the 
Son  and  Sjnrit  have  it  not  ?  Do  not  attributes,  at  least  according  to 
tJie  usind  motliods  of  thinking  and  reasoning,  arise  from  the  nature 


1 


ETERNAL  GENERATION  AND   PROCESSION.  275 

and  essence  of  substances  ?  ■  And  if  the  Son  and  Spirit  possess  the 
same  substance  in  all  respects  (which  must  be  true  if  the  substance  of 
the  Godhead  is  numerically  one),  then  how  can  it  be  shown  that  the 
second  and  third  persons  are  dependent  for  the  mode  of  their  existence 
on  the  first?  The  same  causes  produce  the  same  effects.  If  the  very 
same  substance  belongs  to  the  Father  which  belongs  to  the  Son  and 
Spirit,  and,  as  possessmg  this,  the  Father  has  ajevvrjaia,  how  can  it  be 
shown  that  the  attributes  attached  to  this  substance  must  not  in  each 
case  be  the  same  ?  ...  To  be  the  author  of  the  proper  substance  of 
the  Godhead  of  Son  and  Spirit,  according  to  the  patristical  creed ;  or  to 
be  the  author  of  the  modus  existendi  of  the  Son  and  Spirit,  accord- 
ing to  the  modern  creed,  —  both  seem  to  mvolve  the  idea  of  a  power 
and  glory  in  the  Father  immeasurably  above  that  of  the  Son  and 
Spirit.  —  Moses  Stuart,  in  Biblical  Repository  for  April,  1835 ; 
voL  V.  pp.  303-4. 

Between  the  fothers  and  the  modern  Trimtarians  we  mark  this 
difference  of  opinion :  The  fathers  held  the  communication  of  the 
substance  (r^f  ovalag)  of  the  Father  to  the  Son ;  while  the  modern 
formula  represents  the  Father  as  begetting  only  the  personality 
(iiTTOffrafftf)  of  the  Son,  and  the  Father  and  Son  begetting  only  the 
personality  (virdaTaai-g)  of  the  Spnit.  All  these  formulae,  however, 
make  this  radiciil  distinction  between  the  Father  and  the  Son ;  namely, 
that  the  Father  is  unbegotten,  and  that  the  Son  is  begotten.  .  .  .  This 
symbol,  "  eternal  generation,"  has  been  handed  down  through  every 
succeeding  age.  .  .  .  But  how  can  they  [these  statements]  consist  with 
the  absolute  equality  of  the  persons  in  the  Godhead  ?  This  we  freely 
confess  we  do  not  see,  nor  have  we  ever  been  able  to  comprehend. 
The  representation  is,  that  the  Father  is  unbegotten,  but  begets ;  the 
Son  is  begotten,  but  never  begets.  Here  a  capacity  —  that  of  beget- 
ting —  is  predicated  of  the  Father,  which  is  not  predicable  of  the 
Son.  How,  then,  can  the  Son  in  every  respect  be  equal  with  the 
Father  ?  and  how  can  one  be  begotten  without  dependence,  in  that 
respect,  uj)on  him  that  begets  ?  Is  the  essence  of  the  superhuman  in 
Christ  begotten  by  the  Father  ?  Then  is  the  Son  dependent  for  that 
essence  upon  his  Father,  and  the  Father  has  this  one  prerogative 
above  the  Son.  Or  is  the  personality  only  of  the  Son  —  according 
to  the  x'efinements  of  modern  scholastics  —  begotten  by  the  Father  ? 
Then  —  leanng  out  of  the  question  the  difficulty  of  apijrehending 
how  a  personaUty  independent  of  essence  can  be  begotten  —  is  th« 
Son  dependent  for  his  personaHty  upon  the  Father ;  so  tliat  very  little 


270  THE  ETERNAL  SONSHIP   OF  CHRIST. 

is  gained.  Nor  is  the  difficulty  removed  by  eternal  gent,  ntion.  This 
may  remove  an  incidentil  difficulty  as  to  time ;  but  the  luct  of  gene- 
ration, and  the  consequences  deducible  from  it,  remain.  Now,  self- 
existence  and  independence  are  essential  elements  of  Divinitv;  but 
derivation,  whether  by  generation,  procession,  or  emanation,  impUes 
dependence.  .  .  .  But  there  is  still  another  objection  to  the  doctrine, 
that  the  substance  or  essence  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  is  derived 
from  the  Father.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  unitv  of  the  Godhead. 
If  there  be  three  substmces  (ovaiai),  each  divine,  then  have  we  three 
Gods,  or  Tritheism  in  re;ility.  But  if  the  Father  ])roduced  the  sub- 
stiince  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  they  are  "  of  one 
substance  with  the  Father,"  then  has  the  Father  produced  or  begotten 
himself.  —  Dr.  D.  W.  Cl.vrk,  in  Methodist  (Quarterly  Review  for 
January,  1851;  fourth  series,  voL  iii.  pp.  119-21. 


THE  TENPENCY   OF   A   DEKIAL   OF    CUKIST'S   ETERNAL   SOXSHIF. 

Probably  no  writers  have  unintentionally  done  so  much  in  behalf  of  the 
simple  Oneness  of  God,  as  those  Trinitarians  who  have  contended  against 
the  doi^a  of  the  eternal  emanation  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost;  and 
for  his  services,  in  this  respect,  the  late  Professor  Stuart  stands  pre-eminent. 
Of  all  the  theories  of  a  Triune  God,  that  which  regards  the  Son  and  Spirit 
as  persons  or  hypostases  who  derived  their  existence  from  the  Father,  seems 
to  be  most  compatible  with  the  notion  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity;  for,  however 
absurd  that  doctrine  may  be  when  connected  with  the  idea  of  an  eternal 
origin  and  of  an  equality  of  divine  perfections,  it  preserves  untouched  the 
Supremacy  and  Self-existence  of  the  Father,  —  the  absolute  Unity  of  that 
Being  from  whom  nil  others  take  their  origin.  When,  therefore,  writers  so 
acute  as  Stuart  point  out  the  total  unreasonableness  and  the  antiscriptu- 
rality  of  the  dogma  of  eternal  generation  and  procession,  they  clear  at  once 
the  polemic  field  of  much  of  that  rubbish  which  has  been  brought  down 
from  the  Niccne  fathers ;  and,  by  their  labors,  the  question  of  a  simple  Unity, 
or  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity,  assumes  a  more  intelligible  aspect.  Occasionally, 
indeed,  they  may  treat  of  the  divine  persons,  so  called,  as  relations  or 
distinctions  in  the  Deity,  to  which  they  do  not  profess  to  attach  any  clear 
or  definite  meaning;  but,  generally  speaking,  they  treat  of  them  as  distinct, 
intelligent  agents;  and,  this  being  the  only  rational  sense  in  which  the  word 
"  person  "  can  be  used  of  those  who  have  couununications  one  with  another, 
and  who  speak  and  act  in  diU'erent  capacities,  the  question  at  issue  between 
Unitarians  and  Trinitarians  will  .siui|ily  be,  Whether  it  is  more  rational  and 
scriptural  to  believe  that  the  Supreme  Being,  the  Underived  Intelligence 
whose  existence  and  attributes  are  displayed  in  the  works  of  nature  and  on 
the  pages  of  revelation,  is  one,  and  only  one,  person  or  being;  or  whether 
he  —  the  one  only  true  and  self-cxisteut  God  —  consists  of  three  sclf-existeu* 


THE   TRINITY   OF   SELF-EXISTENT  PERSONS.  277 

person?,  equal  to  each  other  in  power  and  glory,  and  each  of  them  a  self- 
existent  God. 

Our  opinion  as  to  the  value  of  Stuakt's  services,  and  their  tendency  to 
promote  Unitarian  views  of  God,  is  confirmed  by  the  following  remarks  of 
a  celebrated  divine:  — 

There  are  some  who  tliiuk  that  the  Sonship  of  the  Redeemer 
*  consists  ill  an  union  of  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  or  the  Word, 
with  the  human  nature ;  and  that  he  beaime  the  Son  of  God  by  be- 
coming man ;  and  therefore,  before  the  incarnation,  there  was  no  Son 
of  God,  though  there  were  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead.  This 
opinion  seems  to  be  rather  gaining  groimd  and  spreading  of  late.  .  .  . 
It  is  worthy  of  consideration,  whether  this  doctrine  of  the  Filiation  of 
Jesus  Clirist  does  not  tend  to  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  it 
has  been  held  by  those  who  have  been  called  the  Orthodox  in  the 
Christian  church,  and  leads  to  what  is  called  Sabellianism,  which  con- 
siders the  Deity  as  but  one  person,  and  to  be  three  only  out  of  respect 
.to  the  different  manner  or  kind  of  his  operations.  This  notion  of  the 
Sonship  of  Christ  leads  to  suppose,  that  the  Deity  is  the  Father  of 
the  ^Mediator,  without  distinction  of  persons ;  and  that  by  "  Father," 
so  often  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  and  generally  in  relation 
to  the  Son,  is  commonly,  if  not  always,  meant  Deity,  without  distinc- 
tion of  persons.  If  this  be  so,  it  tends  to  exclude  all  distinction  of 
persons  in  God,  and  to  make  the  personality  of  the  Redeemer  to 
consist  wholly  in  the  human  natiu-e  j  and,  finallj',  to  make  his  union 
with  Deity  no  more,  but  the  same  which  Arians  and  Socinians  admit, 
viz.,  the  same  which  takes  place  between  God  and  good  men  in  gene- 
ral, but  in  a  higher  and  peculiar  degree.  .  .  .  They  who  do  not  believe 
the  eternal  Sonship  of  Jesus  Christ,  because  it  is  mysterious  and  incom- 
prehensible (and  to  some  it  appears  to  be  foil  of  contradiction),  will, 
if  they  be  consistent  with  themselves,  for  the  same  reason  reject  the 
doctrine  of  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  one  God.  —  Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins  : 
System  of  Doctrines,  chap.  10 ;  in  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  299,  306,  308. 


^  7.   The  Tiunity  of  Self-existent  and  Independent  Persons. 

The  whole  nature  is  in  each  hypostasis,  and  each  has  something 
peculiar  to  himself.  The  Father  is  entirely  in  the  Son,  and  the  Son 
entirely  in  the  Father.  .  .  .  When  we  speak  simply  of  the  Son  without 
reference  to  the  Father,  we  truly  and  properly  assert  him  to  be  self- 
existent,  and  therefore  call  him  the  sole  first  cause;   but,  when  we 

24 


278  TUE  TRINITY  01'   SELF-EXISTENT  PERSONS. 

distinctly  treat  of  the  relation  between  him  and  the  Father,  we  justly 

represent  him  as  originating  from  the  Father We  say  that 

the  Deity  is  absohitely  sell-existent :  whence  we  confess  also,  that  the 
Son,  as  God,  independently  of  the  consideration  of  person,  is  self- 
existent;  but,  as  the  Son,  we  say  that  he  is  of  the  Father.  Thus  his 
essence  is  mioriginated ;  but  the  origin  of  liis  person  is  God  himself.  — 
John  Calvin  :  Institutes,  book  i.  chap.  xiii.  19,  25. 

Tliat  is  to  saj',  the  Son  is  both  an  originated  or  dependent  and  a  self- 
existent  being.  The  Son  and  (according  to  the  same  reasoning)  the  Spirit 
derived  each  his  personality  from  the  Father;  but  this  personality  contains 
within  itself,  besides  that  "something"  which  is  "peculiar"  to  it,  all  that 
constitutes  Deity;  for  "the  whole  nature  is  in  each  hypostasis,"  or  person. 
But  the  nature  or  essence  of  Deity  is  unoriginated:  it  is  self-existent.  The 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  therefore,  in  one  sense,  three  supreme, 
>elf-existent  Gods;  for  each  hypostasis  is  in  possession  of  the  "whole" 
divine  nature:  but,  in  another  sense,  they  are  —  one  of  them,  the  first,  an 
infinite  and  absolute  being;  the  others,  finite  and  dependent;  for  the  latter 
received  from  the  former  each  his  "  peculiar  something,"  but  not  the  former 
from  the  latter. 

I  cannot  but  conclude,  that  the  divine  personality,  not  only  of  ths 
Father,  but  of  the  Son  and  Spirit,  is  as  much  independent  and  unde- 
rived  as  the  di^•ine  essence.  —  Dr.  Thomas  Ridgley  :  Body  of 
Divhiitij,  vol.  i.  p.  263. 

If  the  Scriptures  do  reveal  the  fact,  that  there  are  three  persons  in 
the  Godhead ;  that  there  is  a  distinction  which  affords  grounds  for  the 
respective  appellations  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  which  Liys 
the  found;ition  for  the  application  of  the  personal  pronouns,  /,  Thou, 
He ;  which  renders  it  proper  to  spe;di  of  "  sending  "  and  "  being  sent ;  " 
to  speak  of  Christ  as  "  being  with  God,"  "  being  in  his  bosom,"  and 
of  other  things  of  the  like  nature  in  the  lilvC  way,  and  yet  to  liold  that 
the  divine  nature  equallj'  belongs  to  each,  —  then  it  is,  like  every  other 
fact  revealed,  to  be  received  simply  on  the  credit  of  divine  revelation. 
.  .  .  Instructed  as  I  have  been  in  respect  to  the  nature  of  true  Godhead, 
it  is  impossible  for  me  to  prediaite  this  quality  of  any  being  who  is 
neither  self-existent  nor  inde])endont.  Tiicse  are  the  ultimate,  highest, 
phinest,  and  most  cert;\in  of  all  the  discrctive  attributes  of  Godhead, 
t.e.  attributes  which  sei)arate  the  Divine  Being  from  all  other  possible 
beings.  If  the  Son  possess  not  these  attributes,  then  he  can  be  only 
a  God  of  secondary  rank.  —  MosES  Stuart  :  Letters  to  Channing ; 
in  Miscellanies,  pp.  23,  30 


THE  TRINITY  OF   SELF-EXISTENT  PERSONS.  279 

According  to  these  representations,  the  Fatlier,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are 
three  distinct  persons;  one  of  the  persons  —  the  Son  —  has  the  nature  of 
Irue  Godhead,  that  is,  he  is  a  self-existent  and  independent  being;  but  each 
of  the  persons  possesses  the  same  divine  nature ;  and,  therefore,  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  three  self-existent  and  independent  beings 
or  Gods.  Such  seems  to  be  the  just  and  necessary  inference  arising  from 
the  statements  made  by  Stuart  in  the  most  popular  of  his  works.  We  do 
not,  however,  mean  to  conceal  the  fact,  that,  while  admitting  the  word 
"person"  to  designate  "a  real  distinction  in  the  Godhead,"  this  learned 
theologian  denies  that  it  describes  "  independent,  conscious  beings,  possess- 
ing separate  and  equal  essences  and  perfections"  (p.  21);  and  that  he  even 
concedes  the  Unitarian  principle,  that  there  is  in  God  "  only  one  intelligent 
agent"  (p.  42).  But  we  cannot  help  thinking,  that  his  own  language,  as 
quoted  from  pp.  23  and  30,  leads  to  tritheistic  results  as  certainly  as  that 
employed  by  many  other  Trinitarians,  against  whose  theories  he  reasons 
with  so  much  force.  At  such  inconsistencies  and  contradictions,  we,  how- 
ever, utter  no  surprise;  for  we  feel  none.  They  abound  perhaps  in  the 
•works  of  all  who  have  written  at  any  length  in  favor  of  the  dogma  of  a 
Triune  God;  and  it  is  natural  that  they  should,  when  speculations  are 
entered  into,  respecting  the  divine  essence,  far  removed  from  the  sublimely 
simple  teachings  of  that  Book,  which,  through  its  various  contents  of  Gospel 
and  Epistle,  pronounces  eternal  life  to  consist,  not  in  an  acquaintance  with 
the  metaphysical  jargon  either  of  eternal  emanations  or  of  self-existent  per- 
sons, but  in  a  practical  knowledge  of  the  only  true  God,  the  Father; 
and  of  HIS  great  Messenger  and  Representative,  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 

remarks. 

From  such  an  opinion  as  this  [the  opinion  of  the  younger  Trel- 
CATIUS,  that  the  Son  of  God  is  autotlieos,  God  of  himsell',  or  in  his  owti 
right]  necessarily  follows  the  two  mutually  conflicting  errors,  Tritheism 
and  iSabelUanism ;  that  is,  (1.)  It  woidd  ensue,  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence from  these  premises,  that  there  are  thi'ee  Gods,  who  have 
together  and  collaterally  the  divine  essence.  .  .  .  Yet  the  proceeding 
of  the  origin  of  one  person  from  another  is  the  only  founcLxtion  that 
has  ever  been  used  for  defending  the  Unity  of  the  divine  essence  in 
the  Trinity  of  persons.  (2.)  It  would  likewise  follow,  as  another 
consequence,  that  the  Son  would  himself  be  the  Father,  because  he 
would  differ  from  the  Father  in  nothmg  but  in  reg-ard  to  name,  Avhich 
was  the  opinion  of  Sabellius.  For  —  since  it  is  pecuHar  to  the  Father 
to  derive  liis  Deity  from  himself,  or  (to  speak  more  correctly)  to  derive 
it  from  no  one  —  if,  in  the  sense  of  being  "  God  of  himself,"  the  Son 
be  called  aidotheos,  it  follows  that  he  is  the  Father.  —  AiiMLXius,  in 
Dr.  Bangs^s  Life  of  Anninins,  pp.  23 1-2. 


280  TUJB  TRINITY   OF   DISTINCT   BEINGS. 

Tliat  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  from  himself,  as  the  Father  is,  is  plam ; 
for,  that  being  supposed,  there  would  be  more  first  principles  than  one, 
and  consequently  more  Gods  than  one ;  which  is  contrary  to  the  whole 
tenor  of  Scripture.  —  Dr,  Is.v.-vc  Barrow  :  Tht  Christian  Faith 
Explained,  Seniion  34 ;  in  Works,  voL  iL  p.  554. 

In  his  "  Exposition  of  the  Creed"  (Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  635),  Dr.  Baurow, 
with  the  same  consistency  of  sentiment,  says  of  our  Saviour,  that  lie  hath 
not  the  divine  essence  of  himself,  but  by  communication  from  the  Father. 
This  great  man  evidently  regarded  the  doctrine  which  Professor  Stuakt, 
long  after  his  time,  professed,  as  leading  to  the  conclusion  that  there  are 
more  Supreme  Gods  than  one.  We  cannot  help  thinking  that  he  is  right; 
unless  the  absurdity  of  the  inference  points  to  a  more  sublime,  a  more 
simple,  a  more  rational,  and  a  more  scriptural  doctrine,  —  that,  to  the  total 
exclusion  of  all  Gods,  whether  derived  or  uuderived,  tukue  is  but  onb 
God.  the  Father. 


.  4  8.  The  Trinity  of  Distinct,  Eternal,  and  Infinite  Minds 
OR  Beings. 

[1]  A  "person"  is  an  indivisible,  intelligent,  incommunicable 
being  or  subsistence,  who  is  not  sustiiined  or  does  not  subsist  in  or 
by  another.  —  Melanctiion.  [2]  The  word  "  person  "  signifies  a 
being  in  itself;  that  which  miderstixnds,  and  acts  with  intelligence.  — 
MORUS. 

The  foUowmgare  these  definitions  in  the  original:  [1]  "  Persona  est  sub 
stantia  individua,  intelligens,  incommunicabilis,  non  sustenta  in  alia  natui'a." 
[2]  "  Persona  sigiiificat  ens  per  se,  quod  intelligit,  et  cum  intellectu  agit." 
They  are  taken  from  Professor  Stuart,  who  repeatedly  quotes  them  with 
disapprobation. 

We  affirm  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  a  person.  By  a  person  we  under- 
stand a  singuhr,  subsistent,  intellectual  being ;  or,  as  Boethius  defines 
it,  an  individual  substixnce  of  a  rational  nature.  —  Dr.  Isaac  Barrow  : 
The  Christian  Faith  Explained ;  in  Works,  vol.  ii.  j).  54G. 

Because  some  philosopliers  have  asserted,  though  erroneously,  both 
the  whole  world's  eternity,  and  its  being  a  necessary  emanation  also 
from  tlie  Deity,  and  consequently  that  it  is  undestroyable,  —  we  shall 
therefore  further  add,  that  these  second  and  third  hypostases  or  pe]> 
sons  of  the  Holy  Trinity  are  not  only  therefore  uncreated,  becixuse 
ihey  were  both  eternal  and  necessttry  emanations,  and  lilicwise  are 
unannihilable ;    but  also   because   tiiey  are   miiversul,   each  of  them 


TUE  TRINITY   OF   DISTINCT   BEINGS.  281 

comprehending  the  whole  world,  and  all  created  things  under  it. 
which  universaUty  of  theirs  is  the  same  thing  with  infinity ;  whereaa 
all  other  beings,  besides  this  Holy  Trinitj^,  are  particular  and  finite. 
Now,  we  say,  that  no  intellectual  being,  wliich  is  not  only  eternal  and 
necessarily  existent,  or  undestro}uble,  but  also  universal  or  infinite,  can 
be  a  creature.  .  .  .  These  three  hypostases,  or  persons,  are  truly  and 
really  one  God ;  not  only  because  they  have  all  essentially  one  and  the 
same  will, . . .  but  also  because  they  are  physically  (if  we  may  so  speak) 
one  also,  and  liave  a  mutual  nepLxuprjaLg  and  kviwap^ig,  inexistence  and 
permeation  of  one  another.  —  Dr.  Ralph  Cudworth  :  Intellectual 
System  of  the  Universe,  vol.  i.  pp.  736-7. 

That  the  three  divine  persons,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are 
three  infinite  minds,  reaUy  distmct  from  each  other ;  that  the  Father 
is  not  the  Son,  nor  the  Holy  Ghost  either  the  Father  or  the  Son,  — 
is  so  very  plain  in  Scripture,  that  I  shall  not  spend  time  to  prove  it, 

especially  since  it  is  supposed  in  this  controversy It  is  plain  the 

persons  are  perfectly  distinct,  for  they  are  three  distinct  and  infinite 
minds,  and  therefore  three  distinct  persons ;  for  a  person  is  an  intelli- 
gent being ;  and  to  say  they  are  three  divine  persons,  and  not  three 
distinct  infinite  minds,  is  both  heresy  and  nonsense.  The  Scripture, 
I'm  sure,  represents  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  as  three  intelligent 
beings,  not  as  three  powers  or  faculties  of  the  same  being,  which  is 
downright  Sabellianism ;  for  faculties  are  not  persons,  no  more  than 
memory,  wUl,  and  understanding  are  three  persons  in  one  man  ...  It 
would  be  very  strange  that  we  should  o\vti  three  persons,  each  of 
which  persons  is  truly  and  properly  God,  and  not  ouii  three  infinite 

minds,  as  if  any  thing  could  be  a  God  but  an  infinite  mind An 

infinite  being  signifies  a  being  absolutely  perfect,  or  which  has  all 

possible  perfections I  plainly  assert,  that,  as  the  Father  is  an 

eternal  and  infinite  mind,  so  the  Son  is  an  eternal  and  infinite  mind, 
distinct  from   the  Father ;   and  the  Holy  Gliost  is  an  eternal  and 

infinite  mind,  distinct  both  from  Father  and  Son The  distinction 

of  persons  .  .  .  cannot  be  more  truly  and  aptly  represented  than  by 
the  distinction  between  three  men ;  for  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost 

are  as  really  distinct  persons  as  Peter,  James,  and  John Three 

minds  and  spirits,  Avhich  have  no  other  difference,  are  yet  distinguished 

by  feh'-consciousness,  and  are  three  distinct  spirits I  grant 

that  they  [the  three  persons]  are  three  holy  spirits.  ...  As  there  is 
but  one  God,  so  he  is  a  holy  being  and  a  pure  mind  and  spuit,  as 
Bpirit  is  opposed  to  mat*^er ;  and  thus  all  tliree  divine  persons  are  holy 

24* 


282  THE  TRINITY   OF   DISTINCT   BEINGS. 

minds  and  spirits,  essentially  united  into  one  infinite  mind  and  spirit ; 
but  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and 
a  distinct  person  in  tlie  Trinity,  is  but  one.  —  Dr.  Wm.  Sherlock  : 
Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  tlie  Trinity,  pp.  51,  66-7,  78,  101, 
105,  119,  258-9. 

We  fear  that  the  doctrine  above  inculcated,  though  abliorrent  to  right 
reason  and  Sacred  Scripture,  is  yet  unconsciously  entertained  by  not  a  tew 
professed  Trinitarians;  and  in  tliis  opinion  we  are  supported  by  the  follow- 
ing remarks  of  Dr.  Knapp,  in  liis  Christian  Theology,  sect.  xvi. :  "  Chris- 
tians in  general  have  been  charged  by  Jews  and  Mahommedans  with 
believing  in  a  Tritheism;  and  it  must  be  confessed,  that  too  much  ground 
for  this  charge  has  been  afforded  by  the  incautious  expressions,  with  regard 
to  the  doctrnie  of  the  Trinity,  which  were  common,  especially  among  the 
ancient  teachers  of  Christianity.  And,  even  at  the  present  day,  there  are 
many  common  and  unenlightened  Christians  who  fall  into  the  same  error. 
They  make  profession  witii  their  mouth  of  their  faith  in  one  God;  while, 
at  the  same  time,  they  conceive  of  him  in  their  minds  as  three."  Proba- 
.bly.  however,  the  majority  of  Trinitarians  incline  more  to  a  Tritheism  of 
unequal  Gods  than  to  the  sentiments  held  by  Dean  Sherlock,  and  regard 
the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  as  possessing  each  a  derived  divine  nature,  but  the 
Father  only  as  the  self-existent  and  independent  God. 

We  make  a  few  other  extracts  from  this  celebrated  writer;  so  number- 
ing them  that  Colekidue's  notes,  which  will  afterwards  be  introduced  as 
strictures,  may  be  understood  by  the  reader. 

[  1  ]  We  know  not  what  the  substance  of  an  infinite  mind  is,  nor 
how  sucli  sul)stances  as  have  no  parts  or  extension  Ciui  touch  each 
other,  or  be  thus  externally  united  ;  but  we  know  the  unity  of  a  mind 
or  spirit  reaches  as  far  as  its  self-consciousness  does,  —  for  that  is  one 
spirit  which  knows  and  feels  itself,  and  its  own  thoughts  and  motions ; 
and,  if  we  mean  this  by  circumincession,  three  persons  thus  intimate 
to  each  other  are  numerically  one.  ...  [2]  As  the  self-consciousness 
of  every  person  to  itself  makes  them  distinct  persons,  so  the  mutual 
consciousness  of  all  three  di\ine  persons  to  each  other  makes  them 
ill  but  one  infinite  God.  As  far  as  consciousness  re;xclies,  so  far  the 
unity  of  a  spirit  extends ;  for  we  know  no  other  unity  of  a  mind  or 
spirit  but  consciousness.  ...  [3]  This  one  supreme  God  is  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  a  Trinity  in  Unity,  three  persons  and  one  God. 
Now,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  with  all  their  divine  attributes 
and  perfections  (exccjiting  tlieir  personal  properties,  which  tlie  schools 
call  the  Ttiodi  subsislendi,  —  that  one  is  tlie  Father,  tlie  other  the  Son, 
avid  the  other  the  Holy  Gliost,  —  which  cannot  be  communicated  to 
vadi  otlier),  are  whole  and  eut'r»'  in  each  person  by  a  mutual  con- 


THE   TRINITY   OF   DISTINCT   BEINGS.  283 

sciousness.  Lach  person  feels  the  other  persons  in  himself,  all  their 
essential  wisdom,  power,  goodness,  justice,  as  he  feels  himself;  and 
this  makes  them  essentially  one.  ...  [4]  I  leave  any  man  to  judge 
whether  this  one  single  motion  of  will,  which  is  in  the  same  instant 
in  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  can  signify  any  thing  else  but  a 
mutual  consciousness,  which  makes  them  numerically  one,  and  as 
intimate  to  each  other  as  every  man  is  to  himsel£  ...  [5]  You'll  say, 
that  there  should  be  three  persons,  each  of  wliich  is  God,  and  yet  but 
one  God,  is  a  contradiction ;  but  what  principle  of  natural  reason  does 
rt  contradict  ?  .  .  .  [6]  It  is  demonsti-able,  that,  if  there  be  three 
persons  and  one  God,  each  person  must  be  God ;  and  yet  there  can- 
Dot  be  three  distinct  Gods,  but  one.  For,  if  each  person  be  not  God, 
nil  three  cannot  be  God,  unless  the  Godhead  have  persons  in  it  which 
Rre  not  God.  —  Dr.  William  Sherlock  :  Vindication  of  the  Doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  pp.  50,  68,  99,  117,  147-9. 

If  here  it  shall  be  urged  to  me,  that  one  individual,  necessarily 
existent,  spii-itual  being  alone  is  God,  and  is  all  that  is  signified  by  the 
name  of  God ;  and  therefore  that  three  distinct,  individual,  necessarily 
existent,  spiritual  beings  must  unavoidably  be  three  distinct  Gods,  — 
I  would  say,  if  by  one  individual,  necessarily  existent,  spiritual  being, 
you  mean  one  such  being,  comprehending  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost  taken  together,  I  grant  it.  But  if  by  one  individual,  necessarily 
existent,  spiritual  being,  you  mean  either  the  Father,  Son,  or  Holy 
Ghost  taken  sejunctly,  I  deny  it ;  for  both  the  other  are  truly  signified 
by  the  name  of  God  too,  as  well  as  that  one.  .  .  .  We  Christians  are 
taught  to  conceive,  under  the  notion  of  God,  a  necessary,  spuitual 
being,  in  which  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  do  so  necessarily  co-exist  as  to 
constitute  that  being ;  and  that,  when  we  conceive  any  one  of  them 
to  be  God,  that  is  but  an  inadequate,  not  an  entire  and  full,  conception 
of  the  Godhead.  .  .  .  Upon  the  whole,  let  such  an  union  be  conceived 
in  the  being  of  God,  with  such  distinction,  and  one  would  think  .  .  the 
absolute  perfection  of  the  Deity,  and  especially  the  perfect  felicity 
thereof,  should  be  much  the  more  apprehensii)le  with  us.  When  we 
consider  the  most  delicious  society  which  would  hence  ensue  among 
the  so  entirely  consentient  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  >vith  whom  there 
is  so  perfect  rectitude,  everlasting  harmony,  mutual  complaccnc)',  unto 
highest  delectation,  .  .  .  we  for  our  parts  cannot  but  hereby  hive  in 
our  minds  a  more  gustful  idea  of  a  blessed  state  than  we  can  conceive 
in  mere  eternal  solitude.  —  J(JIIN  Howe  :  Calm  Enquiry  concerning 
the  Possibility  of  a  Trinity ;  in  Worlis,  vol.  ii.  pp.  549-50. 


284  THE  TKTNITY   OF   DTSTIXCT  BEINGS. 

It  may  be  a  question  whether  the  pious  Howe,  in  the  preceding  extracc, 
speaks  of  three  self-existent  beings,  or  of  three  imperfect  Gods  constituting 
one  perfect  God;  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  represents  the  Ueity 
as  made  up  of  a  council  of  distinct  but  harmonious  intelligences,  relieving 
what  would  otherwise  have  been  the  tedium  of  an  "eternal  solitude"  by  a 
free,  equal  interchange  of  converse  and  love.  The  old  Hebrew  propheta 
seem  to  have  entertained  very  difl'erent  conceptions  of  Jehovah:  "  Before 
the  mountains  were  brought  forth,  or  ever  thou  hadst  formed  the  earth 
and  the  world,  even  from  everlasting  to  everlasting,  thou  art  God."  •  "  I  am 
Jehovah  that  maketh  all  things;  that  stretcheth  forth  the  heavens  alo>;e; 
that  spreadeth  abroad  the  earth  by  siysklf." 

REMARKS. 

I  do,  I  confess,  charge  this  author  [Dr.  WiLLiAM  Sherlock]  flith 
asserting  three  Gods  (although  he  does  not  in  ter minis  express  itX 
because  of  his  asserting  three  distinct  infinite  minds  or  spirits.  .  .  , 
The  consequence  of  three  Gods  from  three  distinct  infinite  spirits  if 
direct,  manifest,  and  immediate ;  or  rather,  in  trutli,  is  not  so  properly 
a  consequence,  or  one  assertion  following  from  another,  as  one  and  the 
very  same  thing  expressed  in  other  words,  .  .  .  For  tlie  words,  "  infi- 
nite mind  or  spirit,"  are  but  a  periphrasis  of  the  thing  signified  bj 

the  term  "  God." If  self-consciousness  be  the  formal  reason  of 

personality  in  the  three  divine  persons,  then  there  is  no  repugnancj 
in  the  nature  and  reason  of  the  thing  itself  but  that  there  might  1« 
three  thousand  j^ersons  in  the  Deity  as  well  as  three.  ...  If  it  be  here 
said  that  the  three  persons  are  not  only  three  self-conscious  spirits, 
but  also  three  distinct  infinite  self-conscious  sjjirits  (as  our  author  sayc 
they  are),  I  answer  that  there  may  be  as  well  three  thousand  distinct 
infinite  s])irits  as  three ;  for  infinity  is  as  much  inconsistent  with  the 
least  phmility  of  infinites  as  with  the  greatest.  .  .  .  But  how,  then, 
comes  there  to  be  only  three  ?  Why,  ujjon  these  grounds  no  other 
reason  c;xn  be  assigned  for  it  but  only  that  it  was  God's  free  determi- 
nation that  there  siiould  l)e  three,  and  no  more.  And  then  the  Trinity 
of  persons  must  l)e  an  effect  of  God's  will,  and  not  a  necess;iry  condi- 
tion of  the  divine  nature ;  and  the  further  consequence  of  this  must 
be,  that  the  three  persons  are  three  created  beings,  as  proceeding  from 
the  free  results  of  God's  will,  by  \'irtue  whereof  they  equally  might 

or  might  not  have  been I  shall  now  jjass  to  his  [Sherlock's] 

other  new  notion  of  mutual  consciousness,  whereby  those  persons, 
who  were  distinguished  from  one  anotlier  l)y  their  respective  self- 
consciousnesses,  are  inilted  and  made  one  in  nature  by  virtue  of  this 
mutual  consciousness :  concerning  which  notion  also,  I  must  urofess 


THE  TRINITY   OF  DISTINCT  BEINaS.  285 

ni}'self  in  the  number  of  those  who  are  by  no  means  satisfied  with  it. 
. . .  No  act  of  knowledge  can  be  the  formal  reason  of  an  unity  of  nature 
in  the  persons  of  the  blessed  Trinity :  but  an  act  of  mutual  conscious- 
ness is  an  act  of  knowledge;  and  therefore  no  act  of  mutual  con- 
sciousness can  be  the  formal  reason  of  an  unity  of  nature  in  the  three 
divine  persons.  The  major  I  prove  thus :  Every  act  of  knowledge 
supposes  the  unity  of  a  tiling  or  being  from  which  that  act  flows,  as 
antecedent  to  it,  and  therefore  cannot  be  the  formal  reason  of  the 
said  being.  For  still  I  affirm,  that  being,  and  consequently  unity  of 
being  (which  is  the  first  affection  of  it),  must  in  order  of  naturt- 

precede  knowledge,  and  all  other  the  like  attributes  of  being 

My  reason  for  what  I  affirm  —  viz.,  that  three  distinct  infinite  minds, 
or  spirits,  are  three  distinct  Gods  —  is  this,  that  "  God  "  and  "  infinite 
mind  "  or  "  spirit "  are  terms  equipollent  and  convertible ;  God  being 
truly  and  properly  an  infinite  mind  or  spirit,  and  an  infinite  mind  or 
spirit  being  as  truly  and  proj)erly  God.  .  .  .  Whatsoever  may  be 
affirmed  or  denied  of  the  one  may  with  equal  truth  and  propriety 
be  affirmed  or  denied  of  the  other.  .  .  .  Thi'ee  infinite  minds  or  spirits 
ai'e  thi-ee  absolute,  simple  beings  or  essences,  and  so  stand  distin- 
guished from  one  another  by  their  whole  beings  or  natures.  .  .  .  Thi'ee 
minds  or  spirits  are  three  absolute  beings,  natures,  or  substances ;  and 
three  distinct  infinite  minds  or  spirits  are,  accordingly,  three  distinct 
infuiite  absolute  beings,  natures,  or  substances ;  that  is,  in  other  words, 

they  are  three  Gods I  desire  this  author  to  produce  that 

revelation  which  declares  the  three  persons  of  the  blessed  Trinity  to 
be  three  distinct  infinite  minds  or  spirits ;  for  I  deny  that  there  is 
any  such.  .  .  .  These  two  propositions  —  \\z.,  "  God  is  one  infinite 
mmd  or  spirit ; "  and  that  other,  "  God  is  three  distinct  infinite  minds 
or  spii'its  "  (which  he  must  be,  if  the  three  diAine  persons  are  three 
distinct  infinite  minds  or  spirits)  —  are  gross,  palpable,  and  irrecon- 
cilable contradictions;  and,  because  they  are  so,  it  is  demonstrably 
certain  that  the  said  three  persons  are  not  three  distinct  infinite  minds 

or  spirits If  those  three  acts  in  the  Godliead  [original  mind 

and  wisdom,  —  the  knowledge  of  itself,  —  the  love  of  itself]  are  three 
distinct  infinite  substances  (as  he  plainly  says  they  are, ...  p.  130, .  .  .), 
then  in  the  Godhead  there  are  and  must  be  three  distinct  Gods  or 
Godheads ;  forasmuch  as,  an  infinite  substance  being  properly  God, 
every  distinct  infinite  substance  is  and  must  be  a  distinct  God.  —  Dil. 
Robert  South  :  Animadversions  on  Slierlock's  Vindication,  pp.  xvL 
101-3.  lOG-7.  119-22,  133-4,  216 


286  TUB  TRINITY   OF   DISTINCT  BEINGS. 

The  assertion,  there  are  thi-ee  infinite,  distinct  minds  and  substances 
in  the  Trinity,  is  false,  impious,  and  heretiail,  contrary  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  catholic  church,  and  particularly  to  the  received  doctrine  of  the 
church  of  England-  —  Vice-Chancellor  and  H£.\ds  of  Colleges 

BELONGING  TO  THE   UNIVERSITY   OF   OXFORD. 

This  censure  was  passed  on  Sheulock's  doctrine,  Nov.  25,  1695.  See 
Lindsey's  Apology,  p.  63. 

An  hypothesis  which  leaves  out  the  a  ery  nexus,  that  natural  eter- 
nal union,  or  leaves  it  out  of  its  proper  j  lace,  and  msists  upon  mutu:il 
consciousness,  which  at  the  most  is  but  i .  consequence  thereof,  wants 
the  principal  thing  requisite  to  the  sohir  g  the  unity  of  the  Godhead. 
If  two  or  tlii-ee  created  sphits  had  never  s  o  perfect  a  mutu.il  perspec- 
tion  of  one  another,  that  would  not  consti  ute  them  one  thing,  though 
it  probably  argue  them  to  be  so;  and  but  probably,  —  for  God  miglit, 
no  doubt,  give  them  a  mutual  insight  into  one  another,  without  mak- 
ing the  mone.  —  JoilN  Howe  :  Calm  Ei\uiry  concerning  ike  Possi' 
hility  of  a  Trinity ;  in  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  548. 

Their  expliciition  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine  is  unscriptural  who 
assert  that  there  are  three  infinite,  eternal,  self-existent  Beings,  as 
distinct  from  each  other  as  three  men  are;  for  this  is  to  supjjose 
three  Gods,  each  being  asserted  to  be  distinctly  a  God.  Whereas  the 
Scripture  says  there  is  but  one  God ;  which  God,  and  no  other,  spake 
by  his  Son  Christ  Jesus,  being  manifested  in  the  flesh.  —  Dr.  Benj. 
Dawson  :  Illustration  of  Texts,  pp.  129-30. 

[1]  Have  these  three  infinite  minds,  at  once  self-conscious  and 
conscious  of  each  other's  consciousness,  always  the  very  s;ime  thouglits  ? 
If  so,  this  mutual  consciousness  is  luimeaning  or  derivative ;  and  the 
three  do  not  cease  to  be  three,  becxuse  tliey  are  three  sanies.  If  not, 
then  there  is  Tritheism  evidently.  ...  [2]  Is  not  God  conscious  of 
every  thouglit  of  man  ?  and  would  Siierloci  allow  me  to  deduce 
tlie  unity  of  the  divine  consciousness  with  the  I  uman  ?  Sherlock's  is 
douljtless  a  very  plain  and  intelligible  account  of  three  Gods  in  the 
most  absolute  intimacy  with  each  other,  so  tha  .  they  are  all  ivs  one ; 
hut  by  no  means  of  three  jjcrsons  that  are  one  God.  I  do  not  won- 
der that  Waterlanu  and  the  other  followers  of  Bull  were  alarmed. 
...  [3]  Will  not  the  Arian  object,  "  You  admit  t  le  modus  subsistendi 
to  be  a  divine  perfection,  and  you  affirm  that  it  is  incommunicable. 
Does  it  not  follow,  therefore,  that  tlicre  are  perfections  which  the  All- 
perfect  does  not  possess  ?  "     This  would  not  apply  to  Bishop  Bull  or 


THE  TRINITY  OF   DISTINCT  BEINGS.  287 

Waferland.  .  .  .  [4]  Is  not  God  conscious  to  all  my  thoughts,  though 
I  am  not  conscious  of  God's  ?  Would  Sherlock  endiu-e  that  I  should 
infer:  Ergo,  God  is  numerically  one  with  me,  though  I  am  not 
numerically  one  with  God  ?  .  .  .  [5]  Surely,  never  did  argument 
vertiginate  more.  I  had  just  acceded  to  Sherlock's  exposition  of  the 
Trinity  as  the  Supreme  Being,  his  reflex  act  of  self-consciousness  and 
his  love  all  forming  one  Supreme  Mind ;  and  now  he  tells  me  that 
each  is  the  whole  Supreme  Mind,  and  denies  that  three,  each  per  9t 
the  whole  God,  are  not  the  same  as  tliree  Gods !  I  grant  that  division 
and  separation  are  terms  inapplicable ;  yet  surely  three  distinct  though 
imdinded  Gods  are  three  Gods.  That  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost 
ai'e  the  one  true  God,  I  fully  believe ;  but  not  Sherlock's  exposition  of 
the  doctrine.  .  .  .  [6]  Three  persons  hanng  the  same  nature  are  three 
persons ;  and  if  to  possess  without  limitation  the  di\ine  natm-e,  as 
opposed  to  the  human,  is  what  we  mean  by  God,  why,  then,  three 
such  persons  are  three  Gods,  and  will  be  thought  so  till  Gregory 
Nyssen  can  persuade  us  that  John,  James,  and  Peter,  each  possessing 
the  human  nature,  are  not  three  men.  John  is  a  man,  James  is  a 
man,  and  Peter  is  a  man ;  but  they  are  not  three  men,  but  one  man  !  — 
S.  T.  Coleridge  :  Inter ary  Remains ;  in  Works,  vol.  v.  pp.  389-94, 
398-9. 

The  preceding  observations  are  numbered  to  correspond  with  those  from 
Sherlock,  so  marked,  in  pp.  282-3  of  the  present  work. 

That  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Scriptures  everywhere  assert ;  and 
this  is  agreeable  to  reason,  and  the  works  of  creation  and  prondence 
which  we  behold ;  and  the  contrary  supposition  is  most  absurd  and 
■jndesu-able,  and  really  involves  in  it  urfinite  e^al.  God  must  be  a 
self-existent  Being,  which  is  the  same  with  existing  necessarily ;  but 
necessary  existence  must  be  infinite.  .  .  .  Therefore  there  can  be 
but  one  fii'st  Cause,  who  exists  necessarily,  and  without  beginning,  for 
there  can  be  but  one  infinite  Being.  To  suppose  another,  or  a  second, 
necessarily  excludes  the  first;  and  to  suppose  the  first,  necessarily 
excludes  the  second  and  any  other  infinite  Being.  The  same  is 
evident  from  the  consideration  of  the  divine  perfections.  God  is  infi- 
nite power,  infinite  wisdom ;  but  there  cannot  be  two  or  more  infinite 
wisdoms,  &c.,  because  this  is  a  contradiction.  Infinite  power  is  all  the 
power  there  is  or  can  be,  and  is  clearly  inconsistent  \vith  another  power 
distinct  fi'om  that,  which  is  also  infinite.  Moreover,  if  Ave  make  the 
impossible  supposition  tliat  there  are  two  or  more  infinite  Beings,  they 


288  THE  TRINITY   OF   DISTINCT  BEINGS. 

must  be  perfectly  alike  in  all  respects,  or  not.  If  not  perfectly  alike, 
and  without  any  difference  in  any  respect,  then  one  or  the  other  must 
be  imj)erfect;  for  absolutely  infinite  perfection  admits  of  no  variation 
or  difference ;  so  that,  if  any  two  beings  differ  in  any  respect,  they 
Ciumot  both  be  absolutely  j)erfect;  therefore  cannot  both  be  God. 
Eut,  if  they  are  perfectly  alike  in  every  respect  and  everj'  thing,  then 
they  are  perfectly  one  and  the  same ;  and  the  sujjposition  destroys 
itself,  being  a  dii'ect  contradiction.  And  there  cim  be  no  possible 
need  of  more  than  one  God ;  and  therefore,  were  tliis  possil)le,  it  is 
not  desirable.  There  can  really  be  no  more  existence  than  one  infinite 
Being,  or  any  addition  to  infinite  perfection  and  excellence ;  therefore 
no  more  can  be  desired,  and  nothing  can  be  effected  or  done,  more 
than  he  can  do.  In  a  word,  he  is  all-sufficient,  and  no  addition  can 
be  made  to  this,  or  even  conceived.  —  Dr.  Samuel  IIoPKtNS :  System 
of  Doctrines,  chap.  3 ;  in  f  Forks,  voL  i.  p.  6 1. 

This  demonstration  of  God's  oneness  is  not  made  by  its  author  in  refer 
ence  to  any  theory  of  three  divine  persons;  but  it  may  be  well  applied  to 
all  such  propositions  as  convey  tlie  notion,  that  the  Deity  consists  of  several 
distinct,  eternal,  and  equal  or  unequal  intellifrcnces,  whether  called  persons 
or  beings.  Dr.  Hopkins  here  virtually  refutes  his  own  Trinitarian  or  Tri- 
theistic  views,  as  will  be  quoted  in  p.  290. 

Whatever  disclaimer  may  be  made  as  to  Tritheism,  the  comjjarison 
of  individuality  in  the  Godhead  with  that  among  men  does  essentially 
involve  theoretical  Tritheism.  If  not,  then  how  could  the  Greeks  be 
accused  of  polytheism,  who  believed  in  a  common  nature  among  the 
Dii  majores  ?  And  if  not,  then  we  must  come  to  the  absurd  conclu- 
sion of  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  that  it  is  catachresis  when  we  sj)c;ik  of 
Peter  and  Paul  and  I3arnal)as  as  three  men,  beaiuse  in  truth  they  have 
but  one  common  liunian  nature.  It  is  impossible  to  put  the  mind 
upon  receiving  such  an  incongruity,  without  its  reluctating.  It  instino- 
lively  revolts.  .  .  .  Now  and  then,  a  zealous  partisan  of  the  Nicene 
Symbol  —  a  Bull,  a  Watkrland,  a  Jones  of  Nayland,  or  some 
writer  of  tliis  Ciist  —  has  told  us  of  tiu'ce  distinct  consciousnesses, 
wills,  and  afi'ections  in  the  Godhead,  and  of  the  eternal  "  society ". 
which  must  have  always  been  in  it.  But  tiie  ears  of  intelligent  Cliris- 
tians  in  general  are  not  now  open  to  these  things.  Yet  still  the 
unwary  and  unthinking  are  affected  by  them,  and  led  unconsciously, 

it  may  be,  into  real  Tritheism Of  some  of  these  definitions, 

t.e.  those  of  Mklanctiion  and  MoRUS  and  some  others,  it  might  be 
s;iid,  that  the  word  "  person,"  as  aj)])licd  to  three  different  men,  could 


THE  TRLNITY  OF  DISTINCT  AGENTS.  289 

scarcely  receive  a  more  full  and  complete  sense  than  is  given  it  in 
respect  to  the  Godhead.  Tritheism  in  theory  seems  to  be  the  un- 
avoidable deduction  from  such  definitions.  .  .  .  The  theory  of  person- 
ality which  represents  three  intelligent  beings,  distinct  in  such  a  full 
sense  that  each  has  his  own  individual  consciousness,  will,  aft'ections, 
purjjoses,  &c.,  must  amount  to  theoretical  Tritheism ;  for  such  are  the 
principal  distinctions  that  exist  between  three  individual  men.  .  .  . 
Any  definition  of  personality  in  the  Godhead  which  represents  person 
to  be  ens  per  se,  or  substantia  individua  non  sustentaia  in  alia  natura, 
.  .  .  seems  plainly  and  substanti\lly  to  infringe  on  the  idea  that  there 
is  but  one  and  numerically  the  same  substance  in  the  Godhead.  I 
am  not  able  to  see  why  it  does  not  clearly  involve  a  logical  conti-a- 
diction.  —  Moses  Stuart,  in  Biblical  Rtpositoi-y,  vol.  v.  p.  314;  and 
vol.  vL  pp.  84,  92-4. 

For  other  valuable  remarks  on  this  tritheistic  Trinity,  Stuart's  supple- 
mentary note  to  his  Second  Letter  to  Channing  (Miscellanies,  pp.  60-2)  may 
be  consulted.  They  will  be  found  applicable  also  to  the  theory  of  a  Triune 
God  presented  in  the  following  subsection;  for,  except  in  mere  terms,  there 
seems  to  be  no  difference  whatever  between  a  Trinity  of  distinct  minds  or 
beings  and  a  Trinity  of  distinct  persons,  subsistences,  or  agents. 


\  9.    The  Trinity  of  Distinct  Persons,  Subsistences,  oe  Agents. 

We  should  carefully  study  and  duly  be  affected  with  that  gracious 
consent,  and  as  it  were  confederacy,  of  the  glorious  Three,  in  design- 
ing and  prosecuting  our  good  ;  their  unanimous  agreement  in  uttering 
those  three  mighty  words  of  favor  to  mankind,  Fadamus,  Redima- 
mns,  Salvetnus,  —  "  Let  us  make  man  out  of  nothing ;  Let  us  recover 
him  from  sin  and  perdition ;  Let  us  crown  him  with  joy  and  salvation." 
We  should  with  grateful  resentments  observe  them  conspiring  to  em- 
ploy their  wisdom  in  contriving  fit  means  and  methods  to  exert  their 
power  in  effectual  accomplishment  of  what  was  requisite  to  the  promot- 
ing of  our  welfare,  .  .  in  prosecution  of  that  gracious  design  which  their 
joint  goodness  had  projected  for  us.  .  .  .  We  should  set  our  mind  on 
God  the  Father,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  from  all  eternity, .  . 
resolving  to  send  his  own  dear  Son  from  his  bosom,  to  procure  and 
purchase  the  redemption  of  mankind ;  .  .  .  then  actually  sending  his 
only  Son,  and  clothing  him  with  human  flesh  ;  .  .  .  also  sending  and 
bestowing  liis  Holy  Sjiirit  to  dwell  in  them  [who  obey  Christ].  —  Dk. 
L  Barrow  :  Def.  of  the  Blessed  Trinity :  Works,  vol  ii.  pp.  157-8. 

2o 


290  THE  TIUMTY   OF   DISTINCT   AGKNT3. 

[By  "  person  "]  I  certai\ily  meiin  a  real  person,  an  hypostasis ;  no 
mode,  attribute,  or  property.  .  .  .  Each  divine  person  is  an  individual 
intelligent  agent ;  but,  as  subsisting  in  one  undivided  substmce,  they 
are  all  together,  in  thiit  respect,  but  one  undivided  intelligent  agent, 
.  .  .  The  church  never  professed  three  hyposfcises  in  any  other  sense 
but  as  they  mean  three  persons.  —  Dii.  Daniel  Wateiil.\nd  :  Vin- 
dication of  Christ's  Divinity,  pp.  350-1. 

The  Scriptures  teach  us  that  there  are  three  in  this  one  God,  — • 
not  thi-ee  Gods,  for  this  would  be  a  contradiction ;  but  tbit  this  infi- 
nite Being  exists  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  three  distinct  subsistences 
or  persons,  and  yet  but  one  God.  .  .  .  These  tlu-ee  ai"e  spoken  of  or 
addressed  in  the  Scriptures  in  such  terms  as  are  used  to  denote  u 
distinct  personaHty,  such  as  1,  thou,  he,  or  him.  Thus  the  Father 
speaks  of  himself  and  the  Son ;  and  thus  the  Son  speaks  to  the 
Father,  and  of  him,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit The  three  per- 
sons in  the  Godhead  form  an  infinitely  high,  holy,  and  hai)])y  society, 
—  the  original  and  perfect  jjattern  of  all  true  love,  friendship,  and 
happiness.  .  .  .  Jesus  Christ,  the  Mediator,  is  the  medium  by  which 
the  society  of  the  redeemed  in  heaven  will  be  united  to  the  infinitely 
more  excellent  and  perfect  society,  —  the  eternal  Trinity  of  persons, 
who  dwell  in  the  infinitely  high  and  holy  place,  far  beyond  the  reach 
or  comprehension  of  creatures ;  from  whom  the  same  benevolence 
and  sociid  love  is  shed  down  through  the  Mediator  on  these  redeemed 
ones,  forming  them  into  one  most  happy  society,  in  union  with  the 
blessed  Trinity,  and  so  as  to  be  a  little  image  of  the  Deity,  —  the 
Three  in  One,  and  One  in  Tliree.  —  Du.  Samuel  Hopkins  :  System 
of  Doctrines,  chaps.  3  and  13  ;  in  f forks,  vol.  i.  pp.  62,  do,  and 
vol.  ii.  pp.  58-9. 

The  Scripture  represents  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  as 
distinctly  possessed  of  personal  jiroperties.  The  Father  is  rejjre^sen^ed 
as  being  able  to  understiind,  to  will,  and  to  act,  of  himself;  the  Son  i« 
represented  as  being  able  to  understiuul,  to  will,  and  to  act,  ot  hnn- 
self ;  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  rej)rescntcd  as  being  able  to  understand, 
to  will,  and  to  act,  of  himself.  According  to  these  rei^rescntiitions, 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  three  distinct  persons,  or  agents. 
Accordingly,  they  speak  to  and  of  each  other  as  such.  .  .  .  Thus  the 
Scripture  leads  us  to  conceive  of  the  one  living  and  true  God  as 
existing  in  three  distinct  persons,  each  of  whom  is  possessed  of  all 
personal  ])roportics,  and  is  able  to  underst;md,  to  will,  and  to  act,  as  a 
free.  volunUux.  ahnighly  agent.     Hence  the  Scripture  represents  the 


TOE   TRINITY  OF   DISTINCT  AGENTS.  291 

three  persons  in  the  sacred  Trinity  as  absolutely  equal  in  every  divine 

perfection If  there  be  but  one  God,  then  it  necessarily  follows 

that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  not  three  Gods,  but  only 
three  persons  in  one  sell-existent,  independent,  eternal  Being.  The 
three  persons  are  not  one  person,  but  one  God ;  or  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost  are  three  in  respect  to  their  personality,  and  but  one 
in  respect  to  their  nature  and  essence.  .  .  .  We  find  no  difficulty  in 
concei^^ng  of  three  divine  persons.  It  is  just  as  easy  to  conceive  of 
three  di\ine  persons  as  of  three  human  persons.  No  man  perhaps 
ever  found  the  least  difficulty  in  conceiving  of  the  Father  as  a  distinct 
person  from  the  Son,  nor  in  conceiving  of  the  Son  as  a  distinct  person 
from  the  Holy  Ghost,  nor  in  concei\ing  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a  dis- 
tinct person  from  both  the  Father  and  Son ;  but  the  only  difficulty  in 
this  case  hes  in  conceiving  these  three  persons  to  be  but  one.  And 
it  is  endent  that  no  man  can  conceive  three  divine  persons  to  be  one 
di^^ne  person,  any  more  than  he  can  conceive  three  angels  to  be  but 
one  angel ;  but  it  does  not  hence  follow  that  no  man  can  conceive  that 
three  divine  persons  should  be  but  one  divine  Being.  For,  if  we  only 
suppose  that  "  being  "  may  signify  something  different  from  "  person  " 
in  respect  to  Deity,  then  we  can  easily  conceive  that  God  should  be 

but  one  Being,  and  yet  exist  in  tliree  persons The  doctrine  of 

the  Sacred  Trinity,  as  represented  in  Scrijjture,  gives  us  a  clear  and 
striking  view  of  the  all-sufficiency  of  God.  Since  he  exists  in  three 
equally  di\ine  persons,  there  is  a  j)ermanent  foundation  in  his  own  na- 
ture for  the  most  pure  and  perfect  blessedness.  Society  is  the  source 
of  the  highest  felicity ;  and  that  society  affords  the  greatest  enjoyment 
which  is  composed  of  persons  of  the  same  character,  of  the  same  dis- 
position, of  the  same  designs,  and  of  the  same  pursuits.  The  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  who  are  three  equally  divine  persons  in  the  one 
living  and  true  God,  are  perfectly  united  in  all  these  respects ;  and 
therefore  God's  existing  a  Trinity  in  Unity  necessarily  renders  him  the 

all-sufficient  source  of  his  own  most  perfect  felicity We  have  as 

clear  an  idea  of  these  tlu'ee  divine  persons  as  of  three  human  persons. 
There  is  no  mystery  in  the  personality  of  tlte  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  though  there  is  a  profound  mystery  in  their  being  one  God.  — 
Dk,  N.  Emaiuns:  horks.,  vol.  iv.  pp.  107-8,  110-11,  114-15,  125. 

This  is  perhaps  as  plain  and  intelligible  a  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  an 
hypostatic  Trinity  as  can  be  found  anywhere;  and  is  the  less  re[)uisive  frona 
its  omission  of  the  palpalily  inconsistent  notions  of  eternal  generation  and 
procession  which  liavo  been  inoulc.ited  in  so  many  creeds  and  confessions. 


292  TIIE  TIIINITY   OF   DISTINCT  AGENTS. 

That  is,  it  is  plain  and  intelligible  in  so  far  as  it  asserts,  that  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  II11I3'  Ghost  are  three  distinct  persons  or  agents,  equal  in  every 
divine  perfection;  each  capable  of  thinking,  willirig,  and  acting  of  himself; 
and  each  deriving  his  hapi)iness  from  the  society  of  the  others.  To  such 
hmguage,  gross  and  polytheistic  as  a  portion  of  it  seems,  we  can  attach 
definite  conceptions.  But,  when  it  asserts  that  these  three  equally  divine 
persons  are  only  one  Being,  it  either  expresses  no  ideas  whatever,  or  utters 
a  manifest  absurdity;  for,  as  applied  to  an  intelligent,  thinking,  voluntary 
agent,  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  term  "  person  "  can  mean  any  thing  else 
but  a  btiny.  The  words  are  synonymous  or  convertible.  God  is  a  person 
or  being,  because  he  is,  thinks,  feels,  wills,  and  acts:  Jesus  Clirist  is  a  per- 
son or  being,  because  ha  is,  thinks,  feels,  wills,  and  acts.  They  are  dislinct 
persons  or  beings,  because  each  of  them  has  his  own  separate  consciousness, 
will,  and  mode  of  action.  To  affirm,  then,  that  these  persons,  with  another 
called  the  Holy  Ghost,  constitute  but  one  Being,  is  a  contradiction  in  ideas; 
or  is  equivalent  to  asserting  that  the  three  persons  are  only  one  person, — 
which  is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 

REMARKS. 

Although  ...  I  would  not  drop  the  use  of  the  word  "  jierson," 
yet  I  would  protest  against  the  license  which  is  often  tixken  in  sjjeak- 
ing  of  the  persons  of  the  Godhead.  When  authors  sj)eak  of  their 
eternal  and  mutual  society,  and  converse  together ;  of  their  tiiking 
counsel  together  and  delibemling,  just  as  if  an  effort  were  necessary 
in  order  to  harmonize  them,  or  to  bring  them  to  one  and  the  sixme 
conclusion,  or  to  be  of  one  and  the  same  mind,  or  in  order  to  cast 
liglit  upon  what  it  may  be  proper  for  them  to  do ;  when  they  tell  us 
of  one  person  entering  into  covenant  with  another,  simply  as  divine, 
and  before  the  foundation  of  the  world ;  of  one  divine  person  com- 
manding, and  another,  simply  as  divine,  obeying,  —  all  this,  and  much 
more  of  the  same  nature,  so  long  as  it  is  indulged  in,  will  continue  to 
bring  upon  Trinit;irLuis  the  reproach  of  Polytheism ;  and  I  had  almost 
said  that  the  rejiroacli  is  not  destitute  of  at  least  a  sembhnce  of  jus- 
tice. —  Mosics  Stuart,  in  Biblical  Repository  for  Jtdy,  1835 ;  vol.  vi. 
pj).  99,  100. 

A  very  large  portion  of  the  Ciiristian  teachers,  together  with  the 
gersral  mass  of  discIpleS,  undoubtedly  hold  three  real  living  persons 
in  the  interior  nature  of  God;  that  is,  three  consciousnesses,  wills, 
hearts,  undcrstiuidings.  Certiiin  passages  of  Scripture,  sup})osed  to 
represent  the  three  persons  as  covenanting,  co-operating,  and  co- 
presiding,  are  taken,  accordingly,  so  to  athrm  in  the  most  literal  and 
dogmatic  sense.  And  some  very  distinguislied  living  teachers  are 
frank  enouiih  to  acknowledge,  that  any  intermediate  doctrine,  between 


THE  TRINITY   OF   DISTINCT   AGENTS.  293 

the  absolute  unity  of  God  and  a  social  unity,  is  impossible  and  incre- 
dible ;  therefore,  that  they  take  the  latter.  Accordingly,  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost  are,  in  their  view,  socially  united  only,  and  preside  in 
that  way,  as  a  kind  of  celestial  tritheocracy,  over  the  world.  They 
are  one  God  simply  in  the  sense  that  the  three  will  always  act  together 
with  a  perfect  consent  or  coincidence.  This  view  has  the  merit  that 
it  fcxkes  consequences  fliirly,  states  them  frankly,  and  boldly  renounces 
orthodoxy,  at  the  point  opposite  to  Unitarianism,  to  escape  the  same 
difficulties.  It  denies  that  the  three  persons  are  "  the  same  in  sub- 
stance," and  asserts,  instead,  three  substances ;  and  yet,  because  of  its 
clear  opposition  to  Unitorianism,  it  is  counted  safe,  and  never  treated 
as  a  heresy.  However,  when  it  is  appHed  to  Christ  and  his  work, 
*.hen  it  breaks  down  mto  the  same  confusion  as  the  more  common 
new,  reducing  the  Son  to  a  really  subordinate  and  subject  position,  in 
which  the  proper  attributes  of  Deity  are  no  longer  visible  or  supposa  - 
ble.  —  Dr.  Horace  Bushnell  :  God  in  Christ,  pp.  130-1. 

The  moment  we  conceive  of  the  Deity  as  consisting  of  three  dis- 
tinct individuals,  each  possessing  consciousness,  affections,  will,  of  his 
own,  we  contradict  and  virtually  abandon  the  true  scriptural,  simple 
idea  of  one  God,  Whatever  guard  we  may  throw  about  our  language, 
we  do  in  fact,  from  that  moment,  believe  not  in  one  God,  but  in  three. 

A  leading  New  England  divine  [Dr.  Nathanael  Emmons]  .  .  . 

thus  discourses  ui}on  the  mode  of  the  divine  existence :  "  We  find  no 
difficulty  in  conceiving  of  three  dinne  persons.  It  is  just  as  easy  to 
conceive  of  three  divine  persons  as  of  tliree  human  persons.  .  .  .  There 
is  no  mystery  in  the  personality  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Hoi}-  Ghost, 
though  there  is  a  profound  mystery  in  their  being  one  God."  Using 
the  term  "  personality  "  in  this  sense,  conceivmg  of  the  thi-ee  divine 
persons  as  we  do  of  three  human  persons,  we  are  quite  ready  to  admit, 
with  the  author,  that  there  is  both  a  difficulty  and  a  profound  mystery, 
nay,  we  should  certainly  add  an  utter  impossibihty,  in  conceiving  of 
these  three  as  one  Being.  It  does  not  remove  the  difficulty  to  say, 
that  "  being  may  signify  something  different  from  person  in  respect  to 
Deity,"  and  therefore  "  we  may  easily  conceive  that  God  should  be 
but  one  Being,  and  yet  exist  in  three  persons."  For  "  being "  and 
•*  person "  signify  different  things  as  respects  man  also,  yet  it  is  not 
easy  to  conceive  of  three  human  persons  constituting  one  human  being. 
Nor  is  il.  any  advance  towards  the  removal  of  this  difficulty  to  saj', 
what  is  doubtless  true,  that  "  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are 
three  in  respect  to  their  personality,  and  but  one  in  respect  to  their 

2d* 


.294  THE  TRINITY   OF   PISTINCT   AGEXTS. 

nature  and  essence."  Personality  is  here  supposed  to  be  something 
distinct  I'rom  natiu'e  and  essence,  so  tliat  what  jjertuns  to  the  one 
does  not  pertiiin  to  the  other.  Very  true.  But  the  personality  of 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  according  to  the  author,  consists  in  this, 
tbit  each  "  is  able  to  understand,  to  will,  and  to  act,  of  hinisell',"  and 
to  do  so  "  as  a  free,  voluntiiry,  almighty  agent."  But  do  not  under- 
standing, will,  and  free  voluntary  action,  ])ert<un,  we  ask,  to  the  verij 
nature  and  essence  of  Deity  ?  Can  we  conceive  of  Deity  as  essentially, 
and  in  his  original  nature,  destitute  of  these  projierties  ?  K  not,  then 
as  personality  consists  in  these  things,  what  becomes  of  the  distinction 
just  made  ?  and  how  is  it  that  a  threefold  personality,  in  this  human 
sense,  does  not  also  involve  a  threefold  nature  and  essence  ?  ...  If  the 
doctrine  of  the  Divine  Unity  be  not  essentially  swept  away  and  aban- 
doned by  these  and  the  like  representiitions,  then  we  are  at  a  loss  to 
conceive  what  idea  can  be  attached  in  any  man's  mind  to  that  word 
"  unity."  It  is  repUed,  the  Scriptm-es  nowhere  teach  that  the  Unity 
of  God  is  just  like  our  unity.  True.  But  what,  we  ask  again,  is  the 
proper  and  primitive  meaning  of  that  word  "  unity "  ?  Are  there 
several  Ivinds  of  unity,  as  there  are  several  shades  of  a  color,  or  several 
races  of  men  ?  Strictly  speaking,  is  there  any  other  unity  but  nume- 
rical unity  ?  And  when  we  think  of  a  thing  as  being  one,  or  as  more 
than  one,  is  not  this  one  of  the  simplest  ideas  that  the  human  mind 
can  form,  —  one  of  its  elementary  conceptions  ?  Is  it  not  e\ident, 
that,  when  we  spedi  of  three  or  more  personal,  individual,  distinct 
agents,  each  willing  and  acting  for  himself,  as  being  one,  we  use  the 
term  in  a  secondary,  and  not  in  its  jn-oper  and  ]n-imitive,  sense  ?  We 
mean  they  are  one  in  sentiment,  one  in  heart,  one  in  purpose  and 
action,  &c.  In  this  sense,  any  three  men,  or  any  number  of  men,  may 
be  one.  ...  It  devolves  on  those  who  conceive  of  the  tliree  divine,  as 
they  do  of  three  human,  persons,  not  merely  to  admit  that  it  is  a 
mvsterious  thing  how  these  three  are  one  Being,  but  to  show  that  in 
any  intelligible  sense,  or  any  proper  use  of  terms,  they  can  be  one ; 
that  three  conscious,  intelhgent,  voluntiiry  agents,  thinking,  feeling, 
willing,  acting,  each  for  himself,  distinct  from  each  other,  do  or  am  in 
any  proper  sense  constitute  one  Being.  .  .  .  The  view  under  considera- 
tion has  led  those  who  adopt  it  to  a  method  of  speaking  of  the  Sacred 
Trinity  which  seems  to  us  altogether  olyectionable.  They  are  accus- 
tomed to  represent  the  divine  ])ersons  as  consulting  together,  fonning 
pbns,  and  enjoying  nnitnal  intercourse  and  companionship.  [Here  the 
critic  takes  from  Dr.  E.MMONS  a  i)as.s;ige  which  appears  in  the  Litter  part 


THE  TKINITY  OF   THE  TETRAD.  205 

of  our  extract,  p.  291 ;  and  he  goes  on  to  say :]  We  ask,  noM ,  whether 
thei-e  be  not,  m  all  this,  the  essential  element  of  Tritheism.  "We  put 
it  to  every  candid  and  intelligent  mind,  whether,  if  the  doctrine  of 
Divine  Unity  were  altogether  stricken  out  of  the  Bible,  and  in  place 
of  it  stood  the  revelation  of  three  Gods,  it  would  be  possible  to 
speak  of  the  society  and  companionship  mutually  enjoyed  by  the  three, 
in  terms  plainer,  more  direct,  and  appropriate,  than  the  above.  — 
Joseph  H.wen,  Jun.,  in  the  JVew  Englander  for  February,  1850; 
vol.  viii.  (new  series,  vol.  ii.)  pp.  17-21. 

The  article  from  which  we  have  made  so  long  an  extract  seems  to  us  to 
contain  a  masterly  exposure  of  a  theory  of  the  Trinity,  wliich,  with  some 
slight  varieties,  has  been  advocated  by  many  distingiiislied  divines.  It  is 
not  the  less  effective  because  it  proceeds  from  the  pen  of  one  who,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  views  of  Unitarians,  believes  (id.  pp.  5,  6)  that  "  the  Son  and 
Spirit  are  really  and  absolutely  divine." 


i  10.   The  Tkinity  of  the  Ipseity,  the  Alterity,  and  THti 
Community. 

In  the  Trinity  there  is,  1.  Ipseity ;  2.  Alterity ;  3.  Community. 
You  may  express  the  formula  thus :  — 

God,  the  Absolute  Will  or  Identity,  = 

Prothesis. 

The  Father  =  Thesis.     The  Son  =  Antithesis.     The  Spirit  =- 

SjTi  thesis. 

The  Trinity  is,  1.  The  Will;  2.  The  Reason,  or  Word;  3.  The  Love, 

or  Life.     As  we  distinguish  these  three,  so  we  must  unite  them  in 

one  God.     The  union  must  be  as  transcendent  as  the  distinction 

My  faith  is  this :  God  is  the  Absolute  Will :  it  is  his  Name,  and  the 
meaning  of  it.  It  is  the  Hypostasis.  As  begetting  his  own  Alterity, 
the  Jehovah,  the  Manifested,  he  is  the  Father ;  but  the  Love  and  the 
Life  —  the  Spirit  —  proceeds  from  both.  —  Samuel  T.  Coleridge  . 
Table  Talk;  in  Works,  vol.  vi.  pp.  289-90,  314,  517. 

We  make  no  pretension  to  understand  Colekidge's  formulas  of  the 
Trinity.  But  the  curious  reader  may,  if  he  choose,  study  what  is  furtlier 
said  on  this  subject  in  the  "  Literary  Remains"  of  the  same  author  (W'orl\s, 
vol.  v.  pp.  18,  19,  355-6,  404).  In  one  of  these  passages,  he  regrets  that 
*'the  total  idea  of  the  4  =  3  =  1, —  of  the  adorable  Tetractys,  eternally 
self-manifested  in  the  Triad,  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  —  was  ncv^r  in  its 
cloudless  unity  present  to"  Dr.  Watkiu^and,  whose  writings  he  so  much 
venerated. 


2%  TUE   TRINITY   OF  TUE  TETRAD. 

KEMARKS. 

We  are  free  to  say  for  ourselves,  that  we  think  CoLERlEGE  com- 
mitted an  error  in  leaving  the  scheme  of  the  Triad  for  that  of  the 
Tetrad,  in  his  construction.  The  symbols  of  the  church,  and  the  Chris- 
tian mind,  proceed  upon  the  hypothesis  of  a  simple  Triad,  wliich  is 
also  a  Monad,  and  hence  teach  a  Trinity  in  Unity  and  a  Unity  in 
Trinity.  Coleridge,  on  the  other  hand,  jjroceeds  upon  the  scheme  of 
the  I'agan  Trinity,  of  which  hints  are  to  be  found  in  PLito,  and  which 
can  be  traced  back  as  far  as  Pythagoras,  —  the  scheme,  namely,  of  a 
Monad  logicdly  anterior  to,  and  other  than,  the  Triad,  —  of  a  Monad 
which  originally  is  not  a  Triad,  but  becomes  one,  —  whereby  four 
fiictors  are  introduced  into  the  problem.  The  error  in  this  scheme 
consists  in  this  its  assumption  of  an  aboriginal  Unity  existing  prima- 
rily by  itself,  and  in  the  order  of  nature,  before  a  Trinity,  —  of  a 
ground  for  the  Trinity,  or,  in  Coleridge's  phrase,  a  prothesis,  whicli  is 
not  in  its  own  nature  either  triune  or  persouid,  but  is  merely  the 
impersonal  base  from  which  the  Trinity  jjroper  is  evolved.  In  this 
way,  we  think,  a  process  of  development  is  introduced  into  the  God- 
head which  is  incompatil)le  with  its  immubible  perfection,  and  with 
that  golden  position  of  the  schoolmen  that  God  is  "  actus  purissimus 
sine  uUa  potentialitate."  There  is  no  latency  in  the  Divine  Being. 
He  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever.  We  think  we  see,  in 
this  scheme  of  Coleridge,  the  influence  of  the  pantheistic  conception 
of  potentiality,  instead  of  the  theistic  conception  of  self-completeness ; 
and  that,  if  he  had  Uiken  the  distinct  and  full  personality  of  the  finite 
spirit  as  the  image  and  likeness  of  the  Infinite  Personality,  and,  having 
steadfastly  contemplated  the  necessary  conditions  of  self-consciousness 
in  man,  had  merely  freed  them  from  the  limit;Uions  of  the  Finite,  — 
of  time  and  degree,  —  he  would  have  been  more  successful,  certainly 
more  continuous  and  progressive.  While  we  say  this,  however,  we 
are  far  from  believing  that  Coleridge's  jjractical  faith  as  a  Christian 
in  the  Trinity  was  in  the  least  aflected  by  this  tendency  to  modaUsm  in 
his  speculative  construction  of  the  doctrine ;  a  modalism,  too,  which, 
as  we  have  remarked  above,  is  logicidly,  and  ought  actually  to  have 
been,  precluded  by  the  position,  which  he  heartily  adopted,  of  the  in- 
trinsic nitionality  and  necessity  of  the  doctrine.  Few  minds  in  the 
whole  history  of  the  Christian  clnn-ch,  as  we  believe,  have  had  more 
awful  and  adoring  views  of  the  Triune  God,  or  have  bowed  down  in 
more  absolute  and  lowly  worship  before  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost.  —  Prof.  Siieud  :  Int.  Essay  to  Coleridge's  K  orks,  vol.  I  p.  44. 


THE  TRINITY  OF   DISTINCTIONS.  297 

§  11.   The  Trinity  of  Distinctions,  ois  Mysterious  Persons. 

If  there  be  in  our  gospels  a  doctrine  concerning  wliich  a  good  logi- 
cian has  apparent  cause  to  exclaim,  it  is  this :  A  God  who  has  but  one 
essence,  and  who  nevertheless  has  three  persons ;  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  who  is  God ;  and  these  three  are  but  one.  The  Father, 
who  is  with  the  Son,  does  not  become  incarnate  when  the  Son  becomes 
incarnate.  The  Son,  who  is  with  the  Father,  no  longer  maintains  the 
rights  of  justice  in  Gethsemane,  when  the  Father  maintains  them. 
The  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  proceeds  from 
both  in  a  manner  ineffiible ;  and  the  Father  and  the  Son,  who  is  with 
the  Holy  Spirit,  do  not  proceed  in  this  manner.  Are  not  these  ideas 
contradictory?  No,  my  brethren.  K  we  should  say  that  God  has 
but  one  essence,  and  that  he  has  three  essences  in  the  same  sense  that 
we  maintain  he  has  but  one,  —  if  Ave  should  say  that  God  is  three  in 
the  same  sense  he  is  one,  —  it  would  be  a  contradiction.  But  this  is 
not  our  thesis.  "We  believe,  on  the  faith  of  a  divine  book,  that  God 
IS  one  in  the  sense  to  which  we  give  the  confused  name  of  "  essence." 
We  believe  that  he  is  three  in  a  sense  to  which  we  give  the  confused 
name  of  "  persons."  We  determine  neither  what  is  this  essence,  nor 
what  is  this  personality.     That  surpasses  reason,  but  does  not  revolt 

it To  find  a  contradiction,  it  is  requisite  to  have  a  distinct  idea 

of  what  I  call  "  essence,"  and  of  what  I  call  "  person ;  "  and,  as  I  pro- 
fess to  be  perfectly  ignorant  of  the  one  and  the  other,  it  is  impossible 
I  should  find  an  absurdity.  —  James  Saurin  :  Sei^nons,  No.  XCUL 
vol.  ii.  p.  357. 

On  this  passage  we  have  to  observe,  that  the  reasoning  is  either  wholly 
unintelligible,  and  therefore  useless;  or  it  proves,  notwithstanding  the  dis- 
claimer, if  it  can  prove  any  thing,  that  there  are  three  Gods.  If,  in  using 
the  terms  "essence"  and  "personality,"  we  cannot  determine  what  their 
meaning  is,  —  if  we  cannot  discriminate  between  the  one  expression  and  the 
other,  or  have  only  a  "  confused  "  notion  of  tiieir  import,  —  it  is  the  merest 
verbiage  to  say  that  God  is  one  in  his  essence,  and  three  in  his  personality. 
We  might  as  well,  in  addressing  another,  employ  the  words  of  a  language, 
the  elements  of  which  were  understood  by  neither  of  the  parties.  If,  how- 
ever, by  the  "  essence  "  of  God  we  mean  his  properties  or  attributes,  —  and 
of  these  we  can  have  clear,  though  limited,  conceptions,  —  then,  bv  attri- 
buting the  divine  properties  severally  to  the  Father,  to  the  Son,  and  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,  by  regarding  them  each  as  God,  or  by  treating  of  them  as  really 
ilivine  persons,  acting  in  different  and  opposite  capacities,  as  the  pious  and 
eloquent  writer  represents  them,  and  not  as  mere  characters  or  relations,  wa 
Hnquestiouably  tliink  and  speak  of  them  as  three  distinct  Gods.     To  say. 


298  THE  TKINITY   OF   DISTINCTIONS. 

then,  that  three  essentially  divine  persons  are  only  one  God,  is  as  absurd  as 
to  say  that  three  persons,  partaking  each  of  the  characteristics  of  humanity, 
are  only  one  man;  and,  so  far  frum  being  a  mystery, — something  either 
hidden  or  incomprehensible, —  it  is  a  manifest  absurdity,  and  thus  not  Duly 
"  surpasses  reason,"  but  "  revolts  it." 

We  are  led  to  infer  from  several  incidental  glimpses  afforded  us 
by  revelation,  that  there  are  cert;\in  distinctions  in  the  divine  nature, 
which  correspond  in  some  measure  with  the  several  relations  to  our- 
selves in  which  God  has  manifested  himself  to  us.  But  what  these 
distinctions  are,  we  are  quite  unable  to  comprehend ;  nor  are  we  en- 
couraged to  indulge  in  curiously  inquiring.  Scripture  chiefly  te.iches 
us  wlut  they  are  not,  guarding  us  carefully  against  the  notion  of 
tluee  Gods :  but  what  are  the  relations  to  each  other  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  leaves  unexplained ;  dwelling  strongly 
on  their  relations  to  us,  as  constituting  a  threefold  manifestation  to 
mankind  of  the  one  God.  —  Archbishop  Wiiately  :  Sermons  on 
Various  Suhjeds,  pp.  199,  200. 

The  archbishop  goes  on  to  say,  that,  "  in  relation  to  ourselves,"  this  three- 
fold manifestation  '*  is,  in  one  respect,  as  if  there  reajly  were  three  distinct 
beings."  Such  a  result  is,  we  think,  not  surprising;  for  it  seems  scarcely 
possible,  so  far  as  regards  God  and  Christ,  that  any  "  inference  from  inci- 
dental glimpses  "  should  overcome  the  irresistible  conclusion  derived  from 
every  page  of  the  New  Testament,  that,  however  one  in  disposition,  design, 
and  works,  they  were  really  and  truly  distinct  beings.  On  "  the  threefold- 
manifestation  "  theory,  which  regards  the  word  "  person,"  when  applied 
severally  to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  as  denoting  "character"  {id.  p.  203), 
Christianity,  instead  of  being  a  revelation,  would  be  a  riddle. 

I  believe,  —  I.  That  God  is  one,  numerically  one,  in  essence  and 
attributes.  In  other  words  the  infinitely  perfect  Spirit,  the  Creator 
and  Preserver  of  all  things,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  luia 
numerically  tlie  same  essence  and  the  same  perfections,  so  far  as  tlicy 
are  known  to  us.  To  j)articulirize :  the  Son  possesses,  not  simjily  a 
similar  or  equ;il  essence  and  perfections,  but  numerically  the  same  as 
the  Father,  without  division  and  without  multiplication.  IL  The  Son 
(and  also  the  Holy  Spirit)  does,  in  some  resjjcct,  truly  and  really,  not 
merely  nominally  or  logically,  differ  from  the  Father.  .  .  .  We  jjrofess 
to  use  it  [the  word  "  jjcrson  "]  merely  because  of  the  jjoverty  of  lan- 
guige  ;  merely  to  designate  our  belief  of  a  real  distinction  hi  the 
Godhead ;  but  not  to  descril)e  independent,  conscious  beings,  possess- 
ing separate  and  equal  essences  and  perfections.  —  MosiiS  SxUART : 
Letters  to  Chantiing ;  ia  Miscellanies,  pp.  18,  21. 


THE  TRINITY  OF  DISTINCTIONS.  299 

111  this  definition  of  a  Triune  God,  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  cautious 
and  acute  theologian  who  penned  it  avoids  the  use  of  the  wcrd  "person," 
though  he  afterwards  tries  to  explain  it  in  conformity  with  his  theor}'.  But 
does  he  escape  from  the  necessary  consequences  of  all  definitions  of  the 
Trinitarian  doctrine?  Certainly  not.  The  first  article  of  his  belief — so 
expressed  as  to  speak  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  with  a  verb  iu 
the  singular  number — hnplies  only  that  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  are  oua 
and  the  same  existence  or  intelligent  agent  as  tlire  Father,  or  that  all  the 
three  are  but  names  of  the  one  God,  "  the  infinitely  perfect  Spirit."  This 
form  of  foith  might,  we  think,  be  subscribed  by  any  believer  in  a  nominal 
or  modal  Trinity.  The  second  article  is  of  a  difterent  character,  and  denies 
the  Son  and  Spirit  to  be  the  same  as  the  Father;  asserting  that  they  are 
truly  and  really,  not  nominally,  different  from  the  Father;  or,  as  we  cannot 
avoid  explaining  the  proposition,  that  they  are  distinct  intelligent  beings, 
agents,  or  persons.  Not  having  used  the  latter  term,  however,  and  taking 
for  granted  that  his  doctrine  is  the  same  as  that  which  is  commonly  defined 
by  the  word  "person,"  but  knowing  that  it  is  employed  and  undei'stood  by 
many  to  denote  a  living,  self-conscious,  and  determining  agent,  the  writer 
affirms  that  it  should  designate  merely  real  distinctions  in  the  Godhead,  and 
not  independent,  conscious  beings.  That  is  to  say,  it  should  be  used  as  signi- 
ficant of  no  ideas  whatever.  Yet,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  though  perfectly 
natural,  this  vague  and  meaningless  theory  —  this  "  Trinity  of  Distinctions  " 
or  Non-entities  —  is  usually  lost  sight  of  by  its  propounders,  who,  both  in 
their  polemical  and  practical  writings,  are  forced  by  the  laws  of  language, 
of  common  sense,  and  of  Scripture,  to  treat  of  God  and  Christ  as  separata 
existences,  having  each  his  distinct,  individual  consciousness,  will,  and 
agency. 

Trinitarians  have  said  a  thousand  times,  that  they  use  the  word 
"  person,"  in  tliis  connection,  not  in  its  ordinary  acceptation,  as  signi- 
fying a  separate,  mdividual  being ;  not  as  denoting  a  perfectly  distinct 
consciousness,  understanding,  and  will.  They  use  it,  in  place  of  a 
better  word  (as  they  have  a  perfect  right  to  do,  defining  the  sense),  to 
set  forth  one  of  the  ineffible  personal  distinctions  in  the  mysterious 
and  adorable  Unity  of  the  Godhead.  —  Dr.  Enoch  Pond  :  Revleio 
of  Dr.  BushneWs  "God  in  Christ,"  pp.  18,  19. 

And,  in  defining  it,  do  they  ever  assign  any  sense,  capable  of  being 
understood,  which  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  notion  either  of  a  mere 
character  or  relation,  or  of  a  real,  perfect,  individual  agent  or  being;  either 
of  a  property  or  representation  of  God,  or  of  one  of  the  Deities  in  the  God 
heady  Does  not  the  definition  imply  either  Sabellianism  or  Tritheism; 
either  a  shadowy  and  unscriptural  form  of  Unitarianism,  or  a  plurality  of 
distinct  Gods? 

While  it  [the  modern  Trinitarian  theory]  admits  a  certain  distinc- 
tion  eternally  existing  in  the  lutiu-e  of  the   Godhead,  to  which  it 


3(.>0  THE  TRINITY  OF   DISTINCTIONS. 

applies  the  term  "  hypostasis  "  or  "  subsistence  "  or  "  person,"  it  does 
not  for  a  moment  atfcicli  to  this  distinction  the  idea  of  so  many  sepa- 
rate individuii'l  existences.  Not  in  any  such  sense  does  it  employ  the 
word  "  person."  Calvin  himself  is  careful  distinctly  to  disavow  any 
such  idea :  "  They  deceive  themselves  in  di-eaming  of  three  separate 
individimls,  each  of  them  possessing  a  part  of  the  divine  essence.  .  .  . 
The  names  of  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  certainly  imjjly  a  real  distinc- 
tion ;  let  no  one  suppose  them  to  be  mere  epithets  by  which  God  is 
variously  deiiignated  from  his  works ;  but  it  is  a  distinction,  not  a 
division."  .  .  .  Just  what  that  distinction  is,  just  what  relation  these 
hypostases  hold  to  each  other  and  to  that  divine  nature  in  which  they 
subsist,  it  is  neither  for  this  theory  nor  any  other  to  define.  Neither 
Calvin  has  attempted  this,  nor  any  other  man  in  his  right  mind.  — 
Joseph  Haven,  Jun.,  in  the  New  Englander  for  February,  1850; 
vol.  viii.  (new  series,  vol.  ii.)  pp.  6,  7. 

Unless  we  misapprehend  the  import  of  the  preceding  extract,  the  writers 
mean  that  the  one  God  is  to  be  regarded  under  three  different  as])ects;  that, 
for  reasons  inherent  in  his  very  nature,  the  one  Infinite  Being  disclosed 
himself  to  mankind  under  the  totally  dissimilar  characters  of  a  Father  and 
a  Son,  as  well  as  that  of  a  Holy  Spirit.  Of  this  theory'of  a  Triune  God,  wo 
shall,  in  the  following  subsection,  offer  a  variety  of  representations. 

REMARKS. 

While  the  Unity  [of  God]  is  thus  confused  and  lost  in  the  Three- 
ness  [namely,  by  the  representation  that  the  three  persons  are  three 
sets  of  attributes  inhering  in  a  common  substance],  perhaps  I  should 
also  admit  that  the  Threeness  sometimes  ajjpears  to  be  clouded  or 
obscured  by  the  Unity.  Thus  it  is  sometimes  protested,  that  in  the 
word  "  person  "  nothing  is  meant  beyond  a  "  tlireefold  distinction ;  " 
though  it  will  always  be  observed,  that  nothing  is  really  meant  by  tlie 
protestation ;  that  the  protester  goes  on  to  speak  and  reason  of  tlie 
three,  not  as  being  only  somewhats,  or  distinctions,  but  as  metiiphysi- 
cal  and  real  persons.  Or  the  three  are  sometimes  compared,  in  their 
union,  to  the  soul,  the  life-principle,  and  the  body,  united  in  one 
person  cidled  a  man,  —  an  illustration  which,  if  it  has  any  jjoint  or 
appositcness  at  all,  sliows  how  God  may  be  one,  and  not  three ;  for 
the  Ufe  and  the  body  are  not  person\  Or,  if  the  soul  l)e  itself  the 
life,  and  the  hody  its  external  development,  which  is  possible,  then,  in 
a  yet  stricter  sense,  there  is  but  one  person  in  them  all.  Probably 
there  is  a  degree  of  alternation,  or  inclining  from  one  side  to  t^e 
other,  in  tliis  view  of  Trinity,  as  the  mind  struggles,  now  to  embr-ce 


THE  TRINITY   OF  MODES  OR  MANIFESTATIONS.  301 

one,  and  now  the  other,  of  two  incompatible  notions It  is  a 

somewhat  curious  tiict  in  theology,  that  the  class  of  teachers  who 
protest  over  the  word  "  person,"  declaring  that  they  mean  only  a  three- 
fold distinction,  cannot  show  that  there  is  really  a  hair's  breadth  of 
difference  between  their  doctrine  and  the  doctrine  asserted  by  many 
of  the  later  Unitarians.  They  may  teach  or  preach  in  a  very  different 
manner ;  tliey  probably  do  ;  but  the  theoretic  contents  of  their  opinion 
cannot  be  distinguished.  Thus  they  say  that  there  is  a  certain  divine 
person  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus ;  but  that,  when  they  use  the  term 
"  person,"  they  mean  not  a  person,  but  a  certain  indefinite  and  indefina- 
ble distinction.  The  later  Unitarians,  meantime,  are  found  asserting 
that  God  is  present  in  Christ  in  a  mysterious  and  peculiar  communi- 
cation of  his  being,  so  that  he  is  the  living  embodiment  and  express 
image  of  God.  If,  now,  the  question  be  raised,  "Wherein  does  the 
mdefinaljle  distinction  of  one  differ  from  the  mysterious  and  peculiar 
cormnunication  of  the  other,  or  how  does  it  appear  that  there  is  any 
difference  ?  there  is  no  li^ing  man,  I  am  quite  sure,  who  can  invent  an 
answer.  Such  is  the  confusion  produced  by  attempting  to  assert  a 
real  and  metaphysical  Trinity  of  persons  ..in  the  divine  nature. 
Whether  the  word  is  taken  at  its  full  import,  or  diminished  away 
to  a  mere  something  called  a  "  distinction,"  there  is  produced  only 
contrariety,  confusion,  practici.il  negation,  not  light.  —  Dr.  Horace 
BUSHNELL  :   God  in  Christ,  pp.  133-6. 


\  12.    The  Trinity  of  Names,  JIodes,  Relations,  ok  Characterb; 
OF  Imfeksonations,  Developments,  ok  Manifestations. 

As  God  afforded  a  clearer  manifestation  of  himself  at  the  advent 
of  Christ,  the  three  persons  also  then  became  better  knovm.  .  .  .  Nor 
can  it  be  doubted  but  that,  in  this  solemn  commission,  "  Baptize  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
Christ  intended  to  testify  that  the  perfect  light  of  fliith  was  now  exhi- 
bited. For  this  is  equivalent  to  being  baptized  into  the  name  of  the 
one  God,  who  hath  clearly  manifested  himself  in  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Spirit :  whence  it  evidently  appears,  that  in  the  divine  essence  there 
exist  three  persons,  in  whom  is  knowTi  the  one  God.  —  John  Calvin  • 
Institutes,  book  i.  chap.  xiii.  16. 

It  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  make  out  Calvin's  opinion  respecting  the 
Trinity.     In  some  places  of  the  "  Institutes,"  he  seems  to  spe;»k  ol'  Father, 

26 


302  THE  TRINITY   OF   MODES  OR  MANIFESTATIONS. 

Son,  and  Iluly  Spirit  as  three  self-existent  subsistences,  —  which  is  neither 
inure  nor  less  than  Trithfiisui;  in  otliers,  as  if  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  de- 
rived tlieir  peculiar  properties  from  the  Futlier,  —  which  involves  the  doc- 
trine of  One  Supreme  Being  aud  two  unequal  and  dependent  Gods;  and  in 
the  passage  just  quoted,  as  if  the  Father,  Son.  and  Spirit  were  only 
manifestations  of  the  one  God,  just  as  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  or  any 
other  object  in  creation,  are  manifestations  of  the  Deity,  or  are  the  Divinity 
himself,  —  which  is  either  Sabellianism  or  Pantheism.  In  the  following 
passage  (book  i.  chap.  xiii.  18),  if  tiie  former  part  of  it  be  interpreted  by 
the  latter,  Calvin  will  be  thought  to  reason  as  if  the  terms  Father,  Son, 
and  Spirit  signified,  not  distinct  intelligences  in  the  Godhead,  but  merely 
attributes  or  operations  of  the  Deity,  —  "Father"  meaning  a  principle  of 
action;  "  Son,"  wisdom,  counsel,  and  arrangement;  "  Spirit,"  power  or  effi- 
cacj':  "  To  the  Father  is  attributed  the  principle  of  action,  the  fountain  and 
source  of  all  things;  to  the  Son,  wisdom,  counsel,  and  the  arrangement  of 
all  operations;  and  the  power  and  efficacy  of  the  action  is  assigned  to  the 
Spirit.  Jloreover,  though  eternity  belongs  to  the  Father,  and  to  the  Son 
and  Spirit  also,  since  God  can  never  have  been  destitute  of  his  wisdom  or 
his  power,  aud  in  eternity  we  must  not  inquire  after  any  thing  prior  or  pos- 
terior; yot  the  observation  of  order  is  not  vain  or  superfluous,  while  the 
Father  is  mentioned  as  first;  in  the  next  place,  the  Son,  as  from  him;  and 
then  the  Spirit,  fl.s  from  bath.  For  the  mind  of  every  man  naturally  inclines 
to  the  consideration,  first,  of  God;  secondly,  of  the  wisdom  emanating  from 
him;  and,  lastly,  of  the  power  by  which  he  executes  the  decrees  of  his 
wisdom." 

To  find  out  the  true  sense  of  the  word  "  person,"  as  applied  to  the 
Trinity,  we  are  to  consider  what  was  the  true  sense  of  the  word  per- 
sona in  approved  Latin  authors.  It  did  signify  the  state,  quality,  or 
condition  of  a  man,  as  he  st;inds  related  to  other  men.  Hence  are 
those  phrases  frequent :  Personam  imjyonere,  to  jiut  a  mim  into  an 
office,  or  confer  a  dlj^nity  upon  hin»;  indiicre  personam,  to  take  upon 
him  the  office ;  sustinere  personam,  to  bear  an  office,  or  execute  an 
office  ;  disponere  personam,  to  resign  the  office  ;  so  agere  personam, 
to  act  a  person.  So  that  there  is  nothing  of  contradiction,  nothing 
absiu-d  or  strange,  for  the  same  man  to  sustain  divers  persons,  or 
divers  jjcrsons  to  meet  in  the  same  man,  according  to  the  true  and  ])ro- 
per  notion  of  tiie  word  "person."  Tims  Tully  :  Sustineo  wnis  tres 
personas ;  mcam,  adversarii,  Judicis,  —  "  I,  being  one  and  tiie  same 
man,  sustain  three  j)crsoiis ;  that  of  my  own,  that  of  my  adversary,  and 
that  of  the  judge."  And  David  was,  at  the  siime  time,  son  of  Jesse, 
father  of  Solomon,  and  king  of  Israel.  Now,  if  three  persons,  in  the 
projjer  sense  of  the  word  "  person,"  may  be  one  man,  what  hinders 
hut  tli.it  three  divine  persons,  in  a  sense  metaphorical,  may  be  on« 


THE  TRINITY   OF  MODES   OR  MANIFESTATIONS.  303 

God  ?  And  what  hinders  but  that  the  same  God,  distinguished 
according  to  these  three  considerations  [those  of  God  the  Creator,  or 
God  tlie  Father ;  God  the  Redeemer,  or  God  the  Son ;  and  God  the 
Sanctifier,  or  God  the  Holy  Ghost],  may  fitly  be  said  to  be  three 
persons  ?  Or,  if  the  word  "  person  "  do  not  please,  three  somcwhats, 
that  are  but  one  God  ?  —  Dr.  John  Wallis  :  Three  Sennons, 
pp.  58-61. 

Other  remarks,  of  a  similar  kind,  by  Dr.  V^'allis,  will  be  found  quoted 
in  the  first  Appendix  to  Whately's  "  Elements  of  Logic,"  and  seemingly 
approved  by  the  archbishop. 

Self-consciousness  is  not  the  formal  reason  of  personality  in  the 

three  divine  persons The  divine  persons  are  three  relatives 

(or  one  simple  being,  or  essence,  under  three  distinct  relations),  and 
consequently  differ  from  one  another,  not  wholly  and  by  all  that  is  in 
them,  but  only  by  some  certain  mode  or  respect  pecuHar  to  each,  and 
upon  that  account  causing  their  distinction.  ..."  Person  "  here  im- 
ports only  a  relation,  or  mode  of  subsistence  in  conjunction  with  the 
nature  it  belongs  to ;  and  therefore  a  multiphcition  of  persons,  of 
itself,  imports  only  a  multiplication  of  such  modes  or  relations,  with- 
out any  necessary  multiplication  of  the  nature  itself  to  which  they 
adhere ;  forasmuch  as  one  and  the  same  nature  may  sustain  several 

distinct  relations,  or  modes  of  subsistence In  God,  besides 

essence  or  substance,  we  assert  that  there  is  that  which  we  call  mode, 
habitude,  and  relation ;  and,  by  one  or  other  of  these  in  conjunction 
with  essence  or  substance,  we  give  account  of  all  the  acts,  attributes, 

and  personalities  belonging  to  the  divine  nature,  or  Godhead 

A  mode  is  projierly  a  certain  habitude  of  some  being,  essence,  or 
thing,  whereby  the  said  essence  or  being  is  determined  to  some  par- 
ticular state  or  condition,  which,  barely  of  itself,  it  would  not  be 
determined  to.  And,  according  to  this  account  of  it,  a  mode  in  things 
spiritual  and  immaterial  seems  to  have  much  the  like  reference  to  such 
kind  of  beings  that  a  posture  has  to  a  body,  to  which  it  gives  some 
difference  or  distinction,  without  superadding  any  new  entity  or  being 
to  it.  In  a  word,  a  mode  is  not  properly  a  being,  either  substmcc  or 
accident,  but  a  certain  affection  cleaving  to  it,  and  determining  it  from 
its  common  general  nature  and  indifference  to  something  more  parti- 
cuhr.  .  .  .  As,  for  instance,  in  created  beings,  dejiendence  is  a  mode 
determining  the  general  nature  of  being  to  that  particular  stiite  or 
oondition,  by  virtue  whereof  it  proceeds  from,  and  is  supported  by, 


304  TUE  TRIXITV   OF   MODES   OK   MANIFESTATIONS. 

another ;  and  the  like  may  be  said  of  mutabiUty,  presence,  absence, 
inherence,  adherence,  and  such  like,  viz.,  that  they  are  not  beings,  but 
modes  or  affections  of  being,  and  inseparable  from  it  so  far  that  they 
can  liave  no  existence  of  their  own,  after  a  separation  or  division  fron» 
the  things  or  beings  to  which  they  do  belong.  ...  As  every  mode  e^ 
sentially  includes  in  it  the  thing  or  being  of  which  it  is  the  mode,  so 
every  person  of  the  blessed  Trinity,  by  virtue  of  its  proper  mode  of 
subsistence,  includes  in  it  the  Godhead  itself,  and  is  properly  the 
Godhead  as  subsisting  with  and  mider  such  a  certain  mode  or  relation. 
. . .  The  divine  nature,  subsisting  under,  and  being  determined  by,  such 
a  certi\in  mode,  personally  differs  from  itself,  as  subsisting  under  and 
determined  by  another ;  forasmuch  as  the  divine  nature,  or  Godhead, 
so  subsisting  and  determined,  is  properly  a  person,  .  .  .  There  is  one, 
and  but  one,  self-existing,  mfinite,  eternal,  &:c.,  being,  nature,  or  sub- 
stance, which  we  call  God.  .  .  .  This  infinite,  eternal,  self-existent  being 
or  nature  exists  in,  and  is  common  to,  three  distinct  persons,  —  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  —  of  which  the  Son  eternally  issues  from  the 
Father,  by  way  of  generation;  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  jointly  from 
both,  by  way  of  spiration  :  which  three  divine  persons  superadd  to 
this  divine  nature,  or  Deity,  three  different  modes  of  subsistence, 
founding  so  many  different  relations ;  each  of  them  belonging  to  each 
jjerson  in  a  jjecidiar,  uncommunicable  manner ;  so  that,  by  \-irtue 
thereof,  each  person  respectively  differs  and  stands  distinguished  from 
tlie  other  two;  and  yet,  by  reason  of  one  and  the  same  numerical 
divine  nature  or  Godhead  equally  existing  in  and  common  to  all  the 
three  persons,  they  are  all  but  one  and  the  same  God,  who  is  blessed 

for  ever If  there  be  any  distinction  m  God,  or  the  Deity,  it 

must  be  either  from  some  distinct  substance,  or  some  accident,  or 
some  mode  of  being.  .  .  .  But  it  cannot  be  from  any  distinct  substance, 
for  that  would  make  a  manifest  composition  in  the  divine  nature ;  nor 
yet  from  any  accident,  for  that  would  make  a  worse  composition :  and 
therefore  it  follows  that  this  distinction  must  unavoidably  proceed 
from  one  or  more  distinct  modes  of  being.  —  Dr.  KoniCRT  South  ^ 
^^niiiutdversions  on  Sherlock.''s  Vindication,  ])p.  91,  120-1,  217,  241-2, 
246-7,  2.So. 

According  to  him  [to  Sahkllius],  the  whole  Trmity  is  God  re- 
vealed;  but  the  Divine  Being,  as  he  is  in  and  of  himself,  and  in  his 

simple   unity,  is  God  concealed  or  unrevcaled Sabellius 

admitted  only  three  Tzpoauira  [persons],  because,  as  a  Christian,  he 
acknowledged  only  three  ways  in  which  God  had  specially  revealed 


TUK   TillNITY   OF   MODES   OR   MANIFESTATIONS.  30') 

himst  f ;   and  these  three  he  separated   definitely  from  each  ;>tlier. 

It  would  seem  that  Sabellius  maintained  the  Trinity  to 

exist,  as  such,  only  in  relation  to  the  various  methods  and  sjjheres  of 
action  belonging  to  the  Godhead.  In  governing  the  world,  in  all  its 
various  operations  on  finite  beings,  the  Godhead  is  Father;  as  re- 
deeming, by  special  operations  in  the  person  of  Christ  and  through 
him,  it  is  Son ;  as  sanctifying,  and  in  all  its  operations  on  the  commu- 
nity of  believers,  and  as  a  Unity  in  the  same,  the  Godhead  is  Spirit.  — ■ 
SciiLEiERMACHER,  as  translated  by  Stuart  in  Biblical  Repository  for 
July,  1835;  vol.  \i.  pp.  61,  67,  70. 

The  sum  of  Schleiermacher's  opinion  ...  is,  that  the  Unity  is 
God  concealed,  and  the  Trmity  is  God  revealed.  The  Unity  or  Movuf, 
as  he  supposes,  is  God  in  seipso,  i.e.  simply  and  in  and  by  himself 
considered,  immutable,  self-existent,  eternal,  and  possessed  of  all  pos- 
sible perfection  and  excellence.  But,  as  to  the  Trinity,  the  Father  is 
God  as  revealed  in  the  works  of  creation,  pro^^dence,  and  legislation ; 
the  Son  is  God  in  human  flesh,  the  divine  Logos  incarnate ;  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  God  the  Sanctifier,  who  renovates  the  hearts  of  sinners,  and 
dwells  in  the  hearts  of  behevers.  The  personality  of  the  Godhead 
consists  in  these  developments,  made  in  time,  and  made  to  intelligent 
and  rational  beings.  Strictly  considered,  personality  is  not  in  his  \iew 
eternal ;  and,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  as  thus  viewed,  it  could  not 
be,  because  it  consists  in  developments  of  the  Godhead  to  intelligent 
beings ;  and  those  developments  could  not  be  made  befoi-e  those  beings 
had  existence.  —  Schleiermacher's  Sabellianism,  as  represented 
by  Moses  Stuart  in  Biblical  Repository  for  April,  1835 ;  vol.  v. 
pp.  316-17. 

This  has  very  much  the  appearance  of  a  kind  of  Unitarianism,  though 
to  us  it  does  not  seem  to  resemble  that  either  of  the  Old  Testament  or  of  tho 
New.  Stuart,  however,  regards  Schleiekmacher  as  a  Trinitarian,  and 
says  (p.  268)  that  he  can  truly  say  he  has  "met  with  scarcely  any  writer, 
ancient  or  modern,  who  appears  to  have  a  deeper  conviction  of,  or  more 
hearty  belief  in,  the  doctrine  of  the  real  Godhead  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit." 

What  is  personality  ?  Is  it  essence  or  attribute  ?  Not  the  first, 
one  might  answer ;  for  essence  in  the  Godhead  is  numerically  one  and 
the  same.  Not  the  second,  in  an  essential  and  fundamental  sense ; 
beaiuse,  as  we  have  seen,  all  the  attributes  that  are  of  this  descrijition 
belong  to  the  one  substance  or  essence  of  the  Godhead.  "  But,  if 
personality  be  neither  substance  nor  attribute,"  some  one  may  exclaim, 

26* 


306  THE   TRINITY  OF   MODES  OR  MANIFESTATIONS. 

"  then  can  it  be  any  thing,  or  have  any  existence  at  all  ?  "...  It  is 
possible  that  there  may  be  in  the  Godhead  some  distinctions  which  do 
not  consist  in  a  difference  of  subst;ince ;  and  wliich,  moreover,  do  not 
consist  in  the  high  and  peculiar  and  exclusive  attributes  ol  that  sub- 
stiince  which  constitute  Godhead,  but  wliich  are,  as  TuRRETlN  avers, 
modal ;  or  they  may  be  of  such  a  nature  that  we  have  no  Linguage  to 
describe  them,  and  no  present  ability  even  to  comprehend  them  if 
they  could  be  described.  .  .  .  There  may  be  distinctions  in  the  God- 
head that  lie  beyond  all  our  present  logical  and  metajihysic;;!  conce})- 
tion  or  power  of  definition ;  distinctions  which  are  co-eternal  with  the 
Godhead  itself,  and  which,  though  neither  essence  nor  essentLil  attril)ule 
in  the  highest  sense,  may  still  have  an  existence  that  is  real  and  true. 

The  fuU  sense  of  the  words  Father,  Sou,  and  Spirit,  am  be 

made  out  only  by  reference  to  God  revealed.  But  the  disthiction  in 
the  Godhead  itself,  in  which  this  revelation  has  its  basis,  is  eternal :  the 
development  of  it  was  made  in  time.  .  .  .  AVhy  should  it  ever  have  any 
more  been  overlooked,  that  the  names  Fatlier,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
are  names  that  have  a  relative  sense,  —  relative,  I  mean,  to  the  de- 
velopments of  the  Godhead  as  made  in  the  economy  of  redemption, 
or  as  preparatory  to  it,  —  than  that  such  names  as  Creator,  Goveruer, 
Redeemer,  Sanctifier,  Most  High,  and  others  of  the  like  kind,  have, 
and  from  their  \ery  nature  must  have,  a  relative  sense,  i.c.  a  sense 
which  connects  itself  with  the  developments  of  the  Godhead  in  relation 
to  creatures  ?  —  Moses  Stuart,  in  Biblical  Repository  for  June, 
183j  ;  voL  \\.  pp.  90-1,  99,  100. 

The  only  ditference  between  Sabeixtus  or  Schleiekmacher  and 
Stoakt  seems  to  be,  that  tlie  former  regarded  the  trinul  distinctions  in  the 
Godhead  —  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  —  as  having  had  a  beginning;  the 
latter,  that  they  were  eternal,  and  had  their  ground  or  foundation  in  the  di- 
vine nature  itself,  in  the  same  way  as  the  attributes  of  creatorship  and 
lordship;  the  development,  however,  of  all  these  distinctions  or  qualities 
being  equally  made  in  time.  But  the  fair  inference  to  be  drawn  from  either 
of  these  views  is,  that  there  is  no  more  reason  for  calling  God  Oirte  persons 
or  distinctions  than  for  extending  the  number  so  as  to  comprehend  all  the 
relations  which  he  bears  to  his  creatures,  as,  for  instance^  tliose  of  Bene- 
factor, Preserver,  King,  and  Judge,  as  well  as  of  Creator,  Redeemer,  and 
Sanctifier. 

Thus  we  have  three  jjcrsons,  or  impersonations,  all  existing  imder 
finite  conditions  or  conceptions.  They  are  relatives,  and,  in  that  view, 
are  not  infinites ;  for  relative  infinites  are  impossil)le.  And  yet,  tiken 
reprosentiitively,  they  arc,  each  and  all,  infinites ;   because  they  st<uid 


THE  TRINITY   OF  MODES   OR  MANIFESTATIONS.  307 

for  and  exjiicss  the  infinite,  absolute  JehoA'ah.  They  may  each  de- 
clare, "  I  am  He ; "  for  what  they  impart  to  us  of  him  is  their  true 
reality.  .  .  .  The  Father  plans,  presides,  and  purposes  for  us ;  the  Son 
expresses  his  intended  mercy,  proves  it,  brings  it  down  even  to  the 
level  of  a  fellow-feeling;  the  Spirit  works  within  us  the  beauty  he 
reveals,  and  the  glory  beheld  in  his  life.  .  .  .  Each  and  all  togethei 
di'amatize  and  bring  forth  into  life  about  us  that  Infinite  One,  who,  tc 
our  mere  thought,  were  no  better  than  Brahma  sleeping  on  eternitj 
and  the  stars.  .  .  .  There  is,  then,  a  real  and  proper  Trinity  in  tin 
Scriptures ;  three  persons.  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  —  one  God 
....  Do  you  ask  whether  I  mean  simply  to  assert  a  modal  Trinity 
or  three  modal  persons  ?  I  must  answer  obscurely.  ...  If  I  say  that 
they  are  modal  only,  as  the  word  is  commonly  used,  I  may  denj-  more 
than  I  am  justified  in  denying,  or  am  required  to  deny,  by  the  ground 
I  have  taken.  I  will  only  say  that  the  Trinity,  or  the  three  persons, 
are  given  to  me  for  the  sake  of  their  external  expression,  not  for 
the  internal  investigation  of  their  contents.  .  .  .  Perhaps  I  shall  come 
nearest  to  the  simple,  positive  idea  of  the  Trinity  here  maintained,  if 
I  Cidl  it  an  Lnstrumental  Trinity,  and  the  persons  Instrumental 
Persons.  ...  In  and  through  these  living  persons,  or  impersonations, 
I  find  the  Infinite  One  brought  down  even  to  my  own  level  of  huma- 
nity, without  an}'  loss  of  his  greatness,  or  reduction  of  liis  majesty. 
...  I  perceive,  too,  that  God  may  as  well  offer  himself  to  me  in  these 
persons,  as  through  trees  or  storms  or  stars ;  that  they  involve  as  Httle 
contrariety,  as  few  limitations,  and  jield  as  much  more  of  Avarmth  as 
they  have  more  of  life.  .  .  •  But  some  one,  I  suppose,  will  require  of 
me  to  answer  whether  the  three  persons  are  eternal,  or  only  occa- 
sional, and  to  be  discontinued.  Undoubtedly,  the  distinction  of  the 
Word,  or  the  power  of  self-representation  in  God  thus  denominated, 
is  eternal  And,  in  this,  we  have  a  permanent  ground  of  possibility 
for  the  threefold  impersonation  called  Trinity.  Accordingly,  if  God 
has  been  eternally  revealed,  or  revealing  himself  to  created  minds,  it 
is  liliely  always  to  have  been,  and  always  to  be,  as  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost.  Consequenth',  it  may  always  be  in  this  manner  that 
we  shall  get  our  impressions  of  God,  and  have  om-  communion  with 
him.  .  .  .  That  which  most  discourages  such  a  behef  is  the  declaration 
of  Paul,  "  When  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the 
Son  also  himself  be  subject  unto  Him  that  did  put  all  things  undei 
liim,  that  God  may  be  all  and  in  all."  —  Dr.  Horace  Busii^ell  : 
(iod  in  Christ,  pp.  173-7. 


808  THE   TRINIT\    OF   MODES  OR   MANIFESTATIONS. 

REMARKS. 

We  must  allow  tlie  divine  persons  tx)  be  real  substantial  beings,  if 
vre  allow  each  person  to  be  God,  unless  we  will  call  any  thing  a  God 
which  has  no  real  being,  as  that  has  not  which  has  not  a  real  nature 
and  essence ;  whereas  all  men  grant  that  there  are  no  accidents  or 
quahties  or  modes  in  God  but  a  pure  and  simple  essence,  or  pure  act ; 
and  therefore  the  three  divine  persons  are  substantially  distinct,  though 

in  one  undivided  substixnce It  is  plain  the  schoolmen  were  no 

Sabellians.  They  did  not  think  the  three  divine  persons  to  be  only 
three  names  of  the  same  infinite  being,  but  acknowledged  each  person 
to  be  really  distinct  from  one  another,  and  each  of  them  to  have  the 
same  numerical  essence,  and  to  be  truly  and  proi)erly  God,  and  not  to 
be  three  modes  of  the  same  infinite  God,  which  is  little  better  than 
three  names  of  one  God.  ...  By  these  modi  subsistendi  [that  the 
Father  is  of  himseh",  or  without  any  cause ;  that  the  Son  is  begotten 
of  the  Father ;  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  Father  and  Son] 
they  did  not  mean,  as  some  mistake  them,  that  the  three  di\'ine  pei^ 
sons  are  three  modes  of  the  Deity,  or  only  modally  distinguished ; 
for  there  are  no  modes,  no  more  than  there  are  quahties  and  accidents, 
in  the  Deity ;  much  less  can  a  mode  be  a  God.  To  be  sure,  all  men 
must  grant  that  the  Father  is  not  a  mode  of  the  Deity,  but  essentially 
God,  and  yet  he  has  his  jiwdus  siibsistendi,  as  well  as  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  no  man  can  think  that  the  Father  begat  only  a 
modus,  and  called  it  his  Son,  whereas  a  son  signifies  a  real  person  of 
the  same  luture,  but  distinct  from  his  Father.  —  Dr.  Wilijam 
Sherlock:  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinily,  jjp.  47, 
83-4. 

Though  the  Latin  word  persona,  as  you  say,  according  to  the  true 
and  ancient  sense,  may  well  enough  admit  to  be  so  taiien  as  that 
the  same  man  might  sustain  three  persons,  I  oli'er  it  to  your  recon- 
sideration whether  ever  you  have  observed  the  word  "  hypostasis,"  in 
any  sort  of  authors,  when  it  signifies  any  person  at  all,  ...  to  be  taken 
in  that  sense ;  and  whether  one  hypostasis  so  taken,  as  it  uses  to  be 
when  it  sig^nifies  a  person,  may  not  be  capable  of  susfcxining  three  of 
those  persons  which  you  here  describe ;  and  whether,  according  to 
this  sense,  you  mean  not  God  to  be  only  one  such  hyj)ostasis.  Be 
pleased  further  hereupon  to  consider  how  well  it  agrees  with  this 
supposition  of  God's  being  but  one  hypostasis,  or  intelligent  sufpo- 
titum,  so  frequently  to  speak  as  the  Holy  Scrij)tures  do  of  the 
Father,  Son  or  Word,  the  Spirit  or  Holy  Ghost,  as  tliree  distinct  I'a 


THE  TRINITY  OF  MODKS   OR  MANIFESTATIONS.  309 

or  He's.  .  .  .  But  the  distinct  predicates  spoken  of  the  three  sacred 
persons  in  the  Godhead  seem  much  more  to  challenge  a  greater  dis- 
tinction of  the  persons  tlian  your  notion  of  a  person  doth  seem  to 
adniit ;  that  of  sending,  and  being  sent,  spoken  so  often  of  the  first 
in  reference  to  tlie  second,  and  of  the  first  and  second  in  reference  to 
the  third,  as  not  to  need  the  quoting  of  places.  If  the  same  man 
were  a  king,  a  general,  and  a  judge,  methinks  it  would  not  well  square 
with  the  usual  forms  of  speaking  among  men  (and  God  speaks  to  men 
as  men)  to  say,  that,  as  the  fu'st,  he  sends  the  two  latter,  that  is,  him- 
self. .  .  .  How  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  can  be  understood,  according 
to  your  notion  of  person,  without  the  Father's  and  Holy  Ghost's 
incarnation  also,  I  confess  I  ainnot  apprehend.  Your  notion  of  a 
person  .  .  .  seems  to  leave  the  Godhead  to  be  but  one  hypostasis,  or 
person  in  the  latter  sense.  .  .  .  Doth  not  this  cinl  or  merely  resiiec- 
tive  notion  of  a  person,  the  other  being  left,  fall  in  with  the  Antitrini- 
tarkn  ?  .  .  .  And  consider  whether,  by  your  notion  of  a  person,  you 
forsake  not  the  generality  of  them  who  have  gone,  as  to  this  point, 
under  the  repute  of  orthodox;  who  no  doubt  have  understood,  by 
three  persons,  three  intelligent  hypostases Yourself  acknow- 
ledge three  somewhats  in  the  Godhead  distinct,  or  else  they  could  not 
be  three.  I  will  not  here  urge,  that,  if  they  be  three  somewhats,  they 
must  be  three  things,  not  three  nothings.  —  John  Howe  :  Letters  to 
Dr.  Wallis ;  in  Works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  562-3,  566. 

I  have  sometimes  almost  been  led  strongly  to  wish  that  the  word 
["  person "]  had  never  come  into  use  among  Cliristians ;  as  it  is  a 
stranger,  at  least  in  the  sense  of  modern  usage,  to  the  Scriptures.  .  .  . 
Yet,  after  all  the  difficulties  which  lie  in  the  way,  I  am  not  persuaded 
that  the  word  can  now  be  dismissed  from  our  theological  vocabulary. 
When  the  Father  is  represented  as  sending  his  Son  into  the  world  in 
order  to  redeem  it,  and  the  Son  as  saying,  "  Lo  !  I  come,  m  y  God,  to 
do  thy  will ;  "  when  God  sends  his  Spirit,  and  pours  out  his  Spirit ;  when 
/,  thou,  he,  are  employed  with  verbs,  &c.,  designating  purposes,  actions, 
feelings,  «&c.,  of  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit ;  when  we  acknowledge  that 
there  are  works  or  developments  appropriate  to  each,  —  in  what  way 
are  we  to  designate  the  distinctions  which  these  things  and  modes 
of  representation  seem  to  imply,  if  not  by  the  use  of  the  word  "  per- 
son "  ?  Let  any  one  who  acknowledges  the  fact  of  such  distinctions 
make  the  effort  to  designate  them  conveniently,  and  yet  avoid  the  use 
of  the  word  "person,"  and  he  will  find  himself  embarrassed.  —  MoSM 
Stuart,  in  Biblical  Reposiiory  for  July,  1835 ;  vol.  vi.  p.  98. 


810  THE  TRINITY   OF  MODES   OR  MANIFESTATIONS, 

« 

The  preceding  extract  we  have  made  from  Stcakt  as  an  alls^^e^  to  his 
own  Sabellian  views.  It  must  indeed  be  embarrassinf::,  if  not  impossible, 
for  any  one  to  employ  language  clearly  involving  tiie  idea  of  distinct  per- 
sonality, consciousness,  and  agency,  as  that  quoted  here  from  Scripture  in 
reference  to  God  and  Christ,  without  being  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  using 
terms  less  vague  than  "  distinctions  "  or  "  relations,"  —  without  being  com- 
pelled to  use  words  unequivocally  implying  the  conception  or  belief  of  morn 
beings  than  one.  We  know  of  no  advocate  for  the  theory  of  trinal  develop- 
ments who  is  not  forced,  by  the  uniform  tenor  of  the  Christian  Records,  to 
speak  of  the  Jlessiah  as  a  being  altogether  distinct  from  his  God  and  Father. 

Ill  these  broad  and  bold  assumptions  [that  God  is  strictly  and 
simply  one,  but  tlitit  he  could  not  be  sufficiently  revealed  without 
evolving  a  Trinity  of  persons,  and  that  these  personaUties  are  the 
dramatis  persontB  of  revebtion]  we  have  the  germ  of  Dr.  BusiiNELL's 
theory.  1.  It  is  assumed  that  God  could  not  reveal  himself  without 
evolving  a  Trinity  of  persons.  By  what  process  has  this  been  ascer- 
tained ?  and  where  the  giant  intellect  that  has  so  comjirehended  the 
essence  of  God,  sweeping  back  to  the  very  oneness  of  the  Absolute 
before  it  invented  the  triform  dranuUis  personfS  that  were  to  manifest 
it  to  men  and  to  angels,  and  becoming  cognixint  of  the  vain  effort  of 
"  God  struggling  to  reveal  himself "  ?  But  wherein  consists  the 
insuperable  difficulty  of  manifestation  in  oneness  of  personality,  —  a 
difficulty  so  great  that  even  the  "  struggling  "  "  Absolute  "  could  not 
surmount  it  ?  Is  one  less  exj)hcable  than  three  ?  and  if  plurality  be 
required,  simply  as  a  mean  of  manifesUition,  why  may  not  two  answer  ."* 
or  why  may  not  seven  be  required  ?  We  have  a  twofold  reason  for 
the  rejection  of  this  theory,  —  first,  its  intrinsic  absurdity ;  and,  second, 
because  it  passes  all  the  bounds  of  reason  and  knowledge,  and  claims 
a  cognizance  of  the  ontology  of  Jehovah  before  he  has  revealed  him- 
self, —  claiming  to  know  what  he  is,  and  wlmt  he  can  do.  2.  Again  : 
this  theory  resolves  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  —  persons 
revealed  —  into  mere  munifest^itions  of  the  actions  and  feelings  of  the 
one  At)solute.  They  are  not  God,  but  only  factitious  rej^resentations ; 
false  in  fact,  but  true  in  design,  —  designed  to  "  import  God  into 
knowledge."  They  are  not  God,  but  represent  him ;  just  as  the  actor 
is  not  Shakspeare,  but  only  "imports"  Sluikspeare  "into  knowledge." 
'I'he  actor  may  develop  fully  the  genius  of  Shakspeare ;  but,  alas  for 
the  Al)S()lute,  with  all  his  "  strugglings " !  even  the  Trinity  lails  to 
"import  him  into  knowledge;"  for  these  dratntitis  personre  are,  after 
all,  only  "  finite  forms,"  and  must  therefore  fail  to  rejjresent  "  the 
Infinite."     Tiiis  Trinity,  then,  is  also  a  Trinity  of  "  forms,"  and  not  of 


SUMMARY  OF   TRINITIES.  311 

substance.  Three  shadows  are  bound  together,  and  to  the  Trinity !  — 
a  God !  —  Dr.  D.  W.  Clark,  t?i  the  Methodist  Quarterly  Review  for 
January,  1851  j  fourth  series,  vol.  ill.  pp.  136-7. 


\  13.   Summary  of  Tki2«'ities. 

In  the  preceding  pages  of  this  chapter,  we  have  given  at.  some  length  the 
principal  views  of  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity,  and  particularly  of  that  of  a 
Trinity  in  Unity,  which  have  been  held  by  various  sections  and  members 
of  the  Christian  church;  and  have  shown,  by  copious  extracts  from  the 
writings  of  eminent  Trinitarians,  that  all  these  representations  of  the  Deity 
except  that  in  the  creed  attributed  to  the  apostles,  and  called  by  their  name, 
are  either  vague,  mystical,  unintelligible,  or  irrational  and  unscriptural ; 
that,  in  some  of  them,  the  language  is  so  obscure  or  so  abstract  as  to  be 
altogether  mcomprehensible  by  the  human  understanding;  that,  in  others, 
the  propositions  laid  down  are  mutually  contradictory  and  mutually  de- 
structive; and  that,  in  all  of  them  which  are  capable  of  being  understood, 
the  ideas  involved  are  of  a  character  totally  different  from  that  which  appears 
in  the  formal  profession  of  "three  persons  in  one  God,"  —  namely,  in  repre- 
senting the  Deity  as  consisting  either, —  1.  Of  only  one  supreme,  underived, 
and  infinite  Intelligence,  the  Father;  and  the  Son  and  Spirit,  though  par- 
taking of  the  same  nature  with  the  Father,  as  dependent,  finite,  and  inferior 
existences:  2.  Of  three  self-existent  and  independent  Minds  or  Beings,  who, 
though  harmonious  in  will,  purpose,  and  action,  are,  and  can  be  nothing  less 
than,  three  equal  Gods:  or,  3.  As  merely  one  Person  or  Being,  sustaining 
the  three  characters  or  relations  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  of  Crea- 
tor, Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier. 

The  same  remarks  will  be  found  to  apply  to  all  the  definitions  which  can 
be  given  of  a  Triune  God,  —  thit  they  are  either  unintelligible  or  absurd; 
either  tritheistic  or  unipersonal;  either  indicating  a  real  personal  identity  of 
God,  Christ,  and  Spirit,  that  is  at  war  with  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  revelations,  or  necessarily  implying  a  polytheism  which  Sacred 
Scripture  rebukes,  which  right  reason  rejects,  and  which  the  very  symbols 
and  confessions  that  involve  the  absurdity  dare  not  openly  express.  To 
corroborate  the  truth  of  cur  statement,  we  shall  give  an  abstract  of  some 
of  tlie  terms  wliich  have  been  employed  on  this  subject  in  venerated  creeds 
and  b}'  eminent  tiieologians,  —  a  very  imperfect  list,  indeed,  but,  in  connec 
tion  with  tlie  extracts  already  made,  sulliciently  copious  to  show  the  perver- 
sity and  daringncss  of  the  human  intellect  in  penetrating  into  the  essence 
of  the  Unsearchable,  —  in  diving  into  mysteries,  of  which  nature  and  the 
Bible  are  silent,-^  in  being  unsatisfied  with  that  simple  and  sublime  declara- 
tion of  Moses,  which  was  reiterated  by  Jesus,  and  taught  in  various  forms 
by  prophets  and  apostles,  that  '' Jkhovah  our  God,  Jkiiovah  is  One." 

In  the  following  tables,  we  sliail  give  tlie  precise  words  of  the  authori 
refened  to,  unless  where,  for  tiie  salve  of  room,  abridgment  is  necessary. 


312 


SUMMARY  OF  TRINITIES. 


8YNONYMES,   UEFINITION'S,   AND   DESCKIPTIOXS  OF  THE   PHKASB, 
"  TIIKKE   persons"    IN   THE   ONE   GOUHEAU. 


Three  substances IIilart,  apud  Calvin's  Instit 

Tlirce  iudi-pendent  and  co-ordinate  individuals,  as  )  Grkuorv  Nyssen  and  Cirilo* 

Peter,  Paul,  and  John    .    .  )      Alex.,  apud  Cudworth. 

Three  nuuierically  distinct  natures  or  subsistences,  all  i  Ascusnage   and    Puilopoxus, 

perfectly  alike )     apud  Murdoi'k's  Mosheim. 

Three  things  distinct  from  each  other,  as  three  men  .  Roscelin,  apud  StillingHeet. 

Tres  nescio  quid  [Three  I  know  not  what]     ....  Axselm,  apud  Dr.  Hampden. 

Tres  propriet;ites  per  se  subsistentes Wirtembeug  Oonfkssion. 

Three  subsistences,  each  dialing,  by  a  peculiar  property  Calvin:  Inst.  bk.  i.  c.  xiii.  6. 

Three  distinct  individuals Ge.nebrard,  ap.  Stillingfleet. 

The  substantial  beings  to  whom  we  stand  relatt^d.  &c.  Barrow  :  Works,  vol.  ii.  p. 149. 

Three  persons  .  .  .  equally  infinite  in  every  perfection  Same,  vol.  ii.  p.  150. 

Three  divine  hypostai^es II.  Mure:  Myst.  of  Godl.  bk.l. 

Three  essences ;  our  Creators  and  Governors      .     .     .  Same,  book  i.  chap.  iv.  3,  4. 

A  Trinity  of  essentialities  or  active  principles     .     .     .  Baxter:  \Yks.  vol.  xxi.  p.  308. 

A  Trin.  of  divine  primalities,  principles,  &  perfections  Same,  vol.  xxi.  p.  312. 

A  Trinity  of  divine  hypostases  or  sub.sistences   .     .     .  CUDWORTn:  In.  S.  vol.i.  p.725. 

All  other  beings,  besides  this  Holy  Trinity,  are  finite  .  Same,  vol.  i.  p.  737. 

Three  differences.  .  .  The  Scripture  everywhere  speaks 

of  them  as  we  use  to  do  of  three  distinct  persons   .  Tillotson  :  Sermon  44. 

Three  distinct  persons ;  three  distinct  subsistences     .  Stillinofleet:  Vin.  pp.  56, 75. 

A  person  is  a  complete  intelligent  substance,  with  a 

peculiar  manner  of  subsistence Same,  p.  261. 

Three  divine  persons  in  a  sense  metaphorical     .     .    .  Wallis:  Three  Ser.  pp.  58-61. 

God  distinguished  according  to  three  considerations  .  Same. 

Three  somewhats Same. 

Uncreated  beings Evelyn:  True R.  vol. I.  p.  131. 

4  trinal  distinction,  or  three  persons  truly  distinct    .  Howe:  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  565 

Three  distinct  intelligent  hypostases Same,  vol.  ii.  p.  568. 

Three  intelligent  natures;  intellectual  subsistences    .  S.ime,  vol.  ii.  pp.  583,  592. 

Three  spiritual  or  intelligent  beings Same,  vol.  ii.  p.  598. 

Real  substantial  beings Wm.  Suerlock  :  Vindic.  p.  47. 

Three  distinct  infinite  minds Same,  pp.  51,  66. 

Three  substantial  acts;  three  divine  subsisting  persons  Same,  p.  130. 

Three  infinite  distinct  minds  aud  substances     .     .     .  Binqiiam,  apud  Chambers. 

Three  really  distinct  hypostiu'es  or  persons    ....  Bull:  Life  by  Nelson,  p.  316. 

Distinct  beings  or  persons,  according  to  the  proper  sig- 
nification of  this  word,  from  each  other   ....  Bishop  Fowler  :  Propos  p.  8. 

Three  relatives,  or  one  simple  being  or  essence  under 

three  distinct  relations;  three  distiuct  modalities  .  South:  Animad.  pp.  120,  160. 

Three  dilferent  modes  of  subsistence Same,  p.  247. 

Several,  particular,  intelligent  substances      .     .     .     .  Leiunitz,  apud  Stuart's  Miso 

Relative  and  incommunicable  modus  of  subsisting       .  Same. 

Substantial  relations Same. 

Three  different  titles  or  characters Gastrell,  apud  Huntingford. 

All  three,  .  .  .  authors  of  our  salvation Same. 

Three  real  persons;  a  real  Father,  Kon,  and  H.  Ohost  Waterland:  Vln.  pp.20,  336 

Each  divine  person  is  an  individual  intelligent  agent .  Same,  p.  350. 


SUMMARY  OF  TRINITIES.  313 

The  different  relations  supported  by  the  same  person,  [pp.  169,  185. 

intelligent  agent,  or  conscious  being Doddridge:  Lectures,  vol.  ii. 

Three  benefactors Edw.  Yoo.no:  Let.  IV.  part  2. 

Three  beings SoameJenvns:  View,  p.  141. 

The  authors  of  every  blessing Wm.  Jones:  Cath.  Doct   p.  6. 

Three  distinct  agents;  Creators,  masters,  &c.    .     .     .  Same,  chaps,  iii.  8,  and  iv. 

Each  person  by  himself  is  God Hoksley  :  Tracts,  p^  262. 

But  these  persons  are  all  included  in  the  very  idea  of 

a  Uod Same 

£(xual  in  all  the  attributes  of  the  divine  nature     .     .  Same,  p.  263. 

Three  distinct  independent  powers;  three  substances  Toei.lneb,  apud  Flatt. 

Three  distinct  subjects;  three  equal  subjects     .     .     .  Knapp:  Ch.  Theol.  sect.  xliv. 

Three  persons  [who]  direct  their  energies  to  effectuate  Uuntingford  :  Thoughts,p.99 

Three  divine  intelligences Same,  p.  17. 

Holy  Gods ;  Creators Same,  p.  23. 

Three  distinct  objects:  ..  each  has  real  subsistence    .  Same,  pp.  27-8. 

Three  distinct  subsistences  or  persons Wabdlaw  :  Soc.Con.  pp.40, 62. 

That  which  can  contrive,  which  can  design,  is  a  person  Same,  p.  330. 

"  Person  "  and  "  intelligent  agent  "  are  synonymous .  Same,  p.  334. 
Three  intelligent  &  active  subjects,  which  we  may  call 

hypostases,  subsistences,  subsistents,  or  persons    .  J.  P.  Smith:  Sep.  Test.  vol.  ii. 
The  Holy  Spirit,  a  real,  intelligent,  personal,  divine  [App.  IV. 

agent,  distinct  from  the  Father  and  the  Son      .     .  Same,  Appendix  III. 

Relations Arnold,  in  Life  and  Cor.  p  52. 

A  threefold  manifestation  to  mankind  of  the  one  God  Whatelt  :  Sermons,  p.  200. 

Characters  standing  in  three  relations  to  us  .     .     .     .  Same,  p.  203. 

Manifestations  of  the  Godhead Milman  :  Il.of  Ch.  vol.ii.p.425. 

Distinct  and  separate  beings Same,  vol.  ii.  p.  431. 

Three  distinct  subsistences ;  Creators Uopkins:  Works,  voLi.  p.62. 

1  hree  divine  beings  or  persons Dwight,  Ser.  71,  near  end. 

Not  three  infinite  beings Same,  Ser.  39,  in  vol.  ii.  p.  8. 

The  meaning  of  the  word  "  person  "  I  do  not  know    .  Same,  p.  9. 

The  Holy  Ghost  a  divine  person;  a  percipient  being  .  Same,  pp.  371-2. 

The  Holy  Ghost  a  living  agent Same,  p.  375. 

All  the  attributes  and  actions  of  a  person  are  ascribed 

to  the  Holy  Spirit  [the  third  person  in  the  Trinity]  Same,  p.  373. 

Three  distinct  agents Em.mons  :  \\'k8.  vol.  Iv.  p.  107 

Three  equally  distinct  and  divine  persons      ....  Same,  vol.  iv.  p.  118. 

A  threefold  distinction  ;  real  distinctions Stoaet  :  Miscel.  pp.  28,  40. 

The  Logos  is  really  and  verily  divine,  self-existent,  un- 
caused, and  immutable  in  himself Same,  as  quoted  by  Miller. 

Equal  agents  in  works  of  creation,  providence,  &c.    .  Moler:   Letters  on  the  Etcr 
Three  persons,  partaking  equally  and  without  limit,  of  [Sonship,  pp.  51-2. 

the  essential  predicates  of  Div.,  as  self-e.xistence    .  Same,  p.  272. 
We  cannot  ,s,ay  that  each  person  possesses  in  himself 

complete,  separate,  and  independent  Divinity  .     .  Same,  p.  107. 

A  threefold  personality  or  impersonation  of  God    .     .  BoaaNELL :  God  in  Christ,  pp. 

A  threefold  denomination  of  God Same,  p.  167.  [147-8. 

Three  impersonations  existing  under  finite  conditions  Same,  p.  173. 

Ineffable  personal  distinctions Pond  :  Review  of  Bushnell. 

A  threefold  distinction,  out  of  which  arises  a  threefold 

manifestation  to  man Haven,  in  New  Eng  for  1850. 

27 


814 


SUMMARY   OF  TRINITIES. 


=ra 


-i  s 


>  i=.c 


'^'  _;  ^ 


a  w  ^    c 


K    3- 


.« 

r^. 

^ 

1 

o 

'•'•? 

o. 

1 

.2 

'S 

J 

o. 

>1 

> 

•5 

i;:  c  ^^g  -i^  gi  ^ 


o.  S    ti  O 


■S  <-  :3  _;    5    =   ;3       W 


s2 

S       o.  ^ 


'^.  a  2  ->  §  =  s' 

»!    H    a    ■< .  °    cj   •* 
■<  •<:  o  o  «  CO  O 


H  n 


2   U)  S 


S  ° 

So.' 

55 


5 
■5^  o 


.2    ■:  = 


■S    2  ■=  -r  ^    o    =5 
^  O  -5  ^   »   CO 


'-=   2  2  'S   p   9.S 


-    E' 


o  •=    2 


a  £'  ^    Jo     £  i    >> 


»  ?  -3  .^  S  o 
J-  ;s  o  .«  -^  ^ 
El  W  C5  a  W  H 


!/.  ■*    «    ■"    S  ^    ~ 
rrl        c_i   ►^   r'^   -.<   n 


£  a 


OK        H!i50-<H        OSPH        HOa< 


c  ;5    a  ^ 


"  2  'H.  •= 

^  t3    «i    .«: 
O    "3 


tc  3 


2  p' 


_,  i«    o  J    a    c 


•5^ 


£^S 


3   o     c  C    ^     C     C 


^2  I 

I  J I 

.2    c  J 
K   O   H 


•2    ==  J  :J 
cie    5^    ~   0  2S 


T3    .r-     O     o 


•3   £ 


2  £  •?  -S    *• 


o|  *  6  I  -:= 

c   IT   =   J3 
15    ?    ■<    H 


O    3_ 


OS       E-c  /5 


c-   O   E- 


^  -g 


HM  ^ 


'0    t.    <"    -^  '-' 


»5.=l 


C3  i" 

fe'5 
2  a 


B    is 
is    2 


o  •-  —  x 
O  K  <  H 


.5  ^  .i:  S 
■°     % 

<      as 


•3    "oJ 


c  3 

23 


g^5 


°  i-  r  £ 


?   og  ^   ^.5  = 


•pr 


S    "CO 

■3  ja 


I      |5 


THE  APOSTOLIC   TRINITY  (RESUMED).  315 

§  14.  The  Apostolic  or  Unitauuvn  Tkujity  {resumed). 

As  a  brief  escape  from  the  labyrinth  of  darknesses  and  contradictions  in 
which  we  have  been  groping,  we  would  again  advert  to  the  simple  and  more 
scriptural  Trinity  mentioned  in  pp.  260-2,  and,  with  the  liberal  writers  whom 
we  quote,  breathe  an  atmosphere  of  a  purer  and  a  more  sacred  kind. 

He  th.it  goes  about  to  speak  of  and  to  understand  the  mysterious 
Trinity,  and  does  it  by  words  and  names  of  man's  invention,  or  by 
such  which  signify  contingently,  if  he  reckons  this  mystery  by  the 
mythology  of  numbers,  by  th^abala  of  letters,  by  the  distinctions  of 
the  school,  and  by  the  weak  inventions  of  disputing  people ;  if  he  only 
talks  of  essences  and  existences,  hj'postases  and  personalities,  distinc- 
tions without  difference,  and  priority  in  co-equalities,  and  unity  in 
pluralities,  and  of  suijerior  predicates  of  no  larger  extent  than  the 
inferior  subjects,  —  he  may  amuse  himself,  and  find  his  understanding 
will  be  like  St.  Peter's  upon  the  mount  of  Tabor  at  the  transfiguration ; 
he  may  build  three  taljernacles  in  his  head,  and  talk  something,  but 
he  knows  not  what.  But  the  good  man  that  feels  the  "  power  of  the 
Father,"  and  he  to  whom  "  the  Son  "  is  become  "  Avisdom,  righteous- 
ness, sanctiflcation,  and  redemption ;  "  he  in  "  whose  heart  the  love  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  is  spread ; "  to  whom  God  hath  communicated  the 
"Holy  Ghost,  the  Comforter,"  —  this  man,  though  he  understands 
nothing  of  that  which  is  unintelligible,  yet  he  only  understands  the 
mysteriousness  of  the  holy  Trinity.  —  Jkrkmy  Taylor  :  Fia  Intelli- 
gentim ;  in  iVorks,  vol.  vi.  pp.  402-3. 

Let  it  be  remarked,  that  apostolic  Trinitarian  doctrine  —  so  utterly 
unlike  the  crabbed  definitions  of  a  wrangling  and  unevangelic  age  — 
brings  the  inscrutable  mystery  of  the  divine  nature  to  bear  immedi- 
ately upon  the  affections,  under  an  aspect  of  pleasurable  emotion. 
How  little  has  this  been  regarded  by  angry  disputants  !  How  griev- 
ously have  those  misunderstood  apostolic  orthodoxy  who  have  pursued 
each  otlier  to  the  death,  because  not  consenting  to  the  same  jargon  as 
themselves !  We  cannot  too  attentively  regard  the  apostolic  method 
of  teaching  this  great  truth,  —  of  shedding  it  into  the  heart.  Our 
creed,  if  derived  from  the  Scriptures,  speaks  to  us  of  "  the  grace  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  lovt  of  God,  and  of  the  communion 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  is  the  orthodoxy  which,  when  cordially 
entertained,  impels  Christians  to  love  each  other  and  all  men,  and  to 
abound  in  good  works,  at  sacrifices  and  offerings,  with  which  "  God  is 
well  pleased."  —  Isaac  Taylor  :  Lect.  on  Sp*.  Christianiti/,  p.  173. 


316  THE  APOSTOLIC   TRIXIT'E    (RESUMED). 

The  author  of  these  catholic  and  Chi-istiau  views  unquestionably  means 
to  speak  of  the  "apostolic  Trinitarian  doctrine,"  not  only  in  contrast  with 
an  orthodoxy,  which,  while,  wrangling  in  unintelligible  terms  about  evan- 
gelic faith,  is  found  wanting  in  the  first  duties  of  morality,  but  also  in  oppo* 
sition  to  Unitarianisni.  There  is,  however,  no  Unitarian  who  would  not 
cordiallj'  admit  the  apostle  Paul's  method  of  teaching  Trinitarianism,  here 
recoinniendetl ;  a  Trinitarianism  which,  speaking  of  Christ,  God,  and  his 
spirit,  restricts  the  usual  name  of  the  Deity  to  one  being  or  person,  in  con- 
nection with  the  spiritual  benefits  of  the  gospel. 

Both  John  and  Paul  place  the  essence  of  Christian  theism  in 
worslii])ping  God  as  the  Father  througn  the  Son,  in  the  communion 
of  the  divine  hfe  which  he  has  established,  or  iii  the  communion  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Father  through  the  Son  dwelling  in  mankind, 
animated  by  his  Spirit,  agreeably  to  the  triad  of  the  PauHne  benedic- 
tion, —  the  love  of  God,  the  grace  of  Christ,  and  the  communion  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  (2  Cor.  xiii.  14) ;  and  this  is  the  basis  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  in  the  connection  of  Christian  experience.  It  has  an 
essentially  practic;il  and  historicitl  signifi&ince  and  foundation :  it  is 
the  doctrine  of  God  revealed  in  humanity,  which  teaches  men  to 
recognize  in  God  not  only  the  original  Source  of  existence,  l)ut  also 
of  salvation  and  sanctification.  —  Neaxdkr  :  History  of  the  PlaiUing 
and  Training  of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  ii.  p.  56. 

We  quote  the  remainder  of  our  author's  paragraph,  which,  though  exlii- 
biting  his  approval  of  the  full  development  of  the  Triune  doctrine,  —  or 
rather,  as  we  should  express  it,  ot  a  gradual  change  from  Theism  to  Tri- 
theism,  —  shows  at  the  same  time  that  that  development,  or  that  change, 
was  the  product,  not  of  "  revelation,"  but  of  a  prying  and  a  diseased  intel- 
lect: *'  From  this  Trinitij'  of  revelation,  as  far  as  the  divine  causality  images 
itself  in  the  same,  the  reflective  mind,  according  to  the  analogy  of  its  own 
being,  pursuing  this  track,  seeks  to  elevate  itself  to  the  idea  of  an  original 
■J-riad  in  God,  availing  itself  of  the  intimations  which  are  conti-.ined  in 
■lohn's  doctrine  ot  the  Logos,  and  the  cognate  elements  of  the  Pauline 
theology."  —  Had  the  monotheistic  Trinity  of  I'uiil  and  John,  so  well  de- 
picted by  Nkandkk,  been  the  only  Trinity  that  had  prevailed  in  the  church 
of  Christ,  what  an  amount  of  logomachy,  of  error,  of  strife,  and  of  perse- 
cution, would  have  been  avoided!  But,  unhappily  for  the  interests  of 
Christian  truth  and  love,  the  professed  disciples  of  Jesus,  not  content  with 
the  practical  simplicity  of  the  gosi)el,  sought  to  "elevate"  their  minds  "to 
the  idea  of  an  oi-ii/iniil  Triad  in  God,"  by  "availing"  themselves  of  the 
supiiosed  "intimations  which  are  contained"  in  the  writings  of  Paul  and 
John,  and  by  blending  them  with  the  reveries  of  heathen  philosophers, 
and  the  tendencies  of  the  people  to  give  a  false  direction  to  their  feelings  of 
reverence  for  moral  and  spiritual  worth. 


THE  DOGMA  OF   A  XKIUNE  GOD  IKRATIONAL.  317 


SECT.    11.  —  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    A   TRIU>fE    GOD    INCOMPREHENSIBLE 
AND   IRIUTIONAL. 

I  am  well  assured,  that  God,  who  made  our  faculties,  will  never  offer  any  thing  to 
us  to  believe  that  upon  close  debate  does  plainly  contradict  them.  —  Uenry  Moke. 

§  1.    This  Dogma,  no  less  than  Transubstantiation,  opposed  to 
CojiMON  Sense. 

Indeed,  that  TransubstantLation  is  openly  and  \'iolently  against 
iiatui'al  reason  is  no  argument  to  make  them  disbeheve  it  who  be- 
lieve the  mystery  of  the  Trinity  in  all  those  niceties  of  exjjUciXtion 
which  ai*e  in  the  school  (and  which  now-a-diiys  pass  for  the  doctrine 
of  the  church),  with  as  much  violence  to  the  pi'inciples  of  natural  and 
supernatural  philosophy  as  can  be  imagined  to  be  in  the  ]ioint  of 
Transubstiintiation.  —  Jkremy  Taylor  :  Liberty  of  Prophesying, 
sect.  XX.  16. 

Ou  another  passage,  of  a  similar  character,  in  Jekemy  Taylor's  works, 
Coleridge,  in  his  "Literary  Remains"  (Worlis,  vol.  v.  p.  229),  says,  "It 
is  most  dangerous,  and,  in  its  distant  consequences,  subversive  of  all  Chris- 
tianity, to  admit,  as  Taylor  does,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  at  all 
against,  or  even  above,  human  reason  in  any  other  sense  than  as  eternity 
and  Deity  itself  are  above  it."  Undoubtedly,  the  prehxte's  admission  would 
be  "  subversive  of  all  Christianity,"  if  a  Trinity  of  co-equal  persons  in  one 
God  were  proved  to  be  a  Christian  doctrine;  but  this,  in  our  opinion,  uevei 
has  been,  and  never  will  be,  proved. 

I  was  half  converted  to  Transubstantiation  by  Tillotson's  common 
senses  against  it ;  seeing  clearly  that  the  same  grounds,  totidem  verbis 
et  syllabis,  would  serve  the  Socinian  against  all  the  mysteries  of  Chris- 
tianity. —  S.  T.  Coleridge  :  Lit.  Remains  ;  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  333. 

But,  my  brethren,  as  I  before  hinted,  are  we  safe  in  at  all  admitting 
this  principle  of  contradiction  to  the  law  of  nature,  of  apparent  \'iola- 
tion  of  philosopliical  principles,  as  a  means  of  interpreting  Scripture  ? 
What,  I  will  ask,  becomes  of  all  mystery  ?  .  .  .  What  becomes  of  that 
very  mystery  which  we  observed  Faber  put  in  a  parallel  with  that  of 
Transubstantiation  when  he  commented  upon  this  argument  ?  What 
becomes  of  the  Trinity?  What  becomes  of  the  incarnation  of  our 
Saviour  ?  Wlut  of  his  birth  from  a  virgin  ?  —  and,  in  short,  wliat 
of  every  mystery  of  the  Christian  religion  ?  Who  will  pretend  to  say, 
that  he  can,  by  any  stretch  of  his  imagination  or  of  his  reason,  secj 

27* 


318  THL*  DOGMA   OF   A  TRIUNE   GOD   IRRATIONAL. 

how,  by  possibility,  three  persons  in  one  God  can  be  but  one  God- 
head ?  If  the  contradiction,  the  apjjarent  contradiction,  to  the  laws  of 
nature,  is  so  easily  received,  without  being  understood  by  us  here,  ia 
it  to  be  a  i)rinciple  for  rejecting  another  doctrine  as  clearly  laid  down 
in  Scripture  ?  and  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucliarist,  which  is  even  more 
jjlainly  expressed  than  it,  is  to  be  rejected  on  such  a  ground,  how  is  it 
possible  for  one  moment  to  retxin  the  other  ?  Its  very  idea  appears, 
at  first  sight,  repugnant  to  every  kw  of  number ;  and  no  pliilosophi- 
cal,  mathematical,  or  speculative  reasoning  will  ever  show  how  it 
possibly  can  be.  You  are  content,  therefore,  to  receive  this  important 
dogma,  shutting  your  eyes,  as  you  should  do,  to  its  incomprehensibi- 
lity :  you  are  content  to  believe  it,  because  the  revelation  of  it  from 
God  was  confiiTned  by  the  authority  of  antiquit}' ;  and  therefore,  if 
you  wish  not  to  be  assailed  on  it  by  the  same  form  of  reasoning  and 
arguments  as  you  use  against  us,  you  must  renounce  this  method, 
and,  simply  because  it  comes  by  revebtion  from  God,  receive  the  real 
presence  at  once,  in  spite  of  the  apparent  contradiction  to  the  senses ; 
for  He  hath  revealed  it  who  hath  the  words  of  eternal  life.  — 
CvBDiXAL  Wiseman  :  Lectures  on  the  Doctrines  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  vol.  ii.  pj).  171-2. 

§  2.   The  Dogma  of  a  Triune  God  utterlt  Incomprehensible,  and 
Repugnant  to  Reason. 

1.  A  Christian  is  one  that  believes  things  his  reason  cannot  com- 
prehend. ...  2.  He  believes  three  to  be  one,  and  one  to  be  three ; 
a  Father  not  to  be  elder  than  his  Son ;  a  Son  to  be  equal  with  his 
Father;  and  one  proceeding  from  both  to  be  equal  with  both;  he 
believing  three  jjcrsons  in  one  nature,  and  two  natures  in  one  person. 
3.  He  believes  a  drgin  to  be  a  mother  of  a  son,  and  tliat  very  son  of 
hers  to  be  her  Maker.  He  believes  Him  to  kive  been  shut  u])  in  a 
narrow  room  whom  heaven  and  earth  could  not  contain.  He  believes 
Him  to  have  been  born  in  time  who  was  and  is  from  everlasting.  He 
believes  Him  to  have  been  a  weak  child,  Rxrried  in  arms,  who  is  the 
Almighty ;  and  Him  once  to  have  died  wlio  only  hath  life  and  immor- 
tahty  in  himself.  —  Lord  Bacon  :   fVorks,  voL  ii.  p.  410. 

The  whole  article  consists  of  thirty-four  "  Christian  Paradoxes,"  so 
striuii^ely  expressed  as  to  have  piven  rise  to  the  suspicion  that  they  are  not 
the  genuine  production  of  Lord  Bacon,  and  may  have  been  written  for  the 
pur|)ose  of  deriding  a  belief  in  Christianity.  But  there  is  no  donbt,  that, 
however  absurd  they  may  a])pear  when   compared  with    the  dictates  of 


THE   DOGMA   OF   A  TRIUNE  GOD  IRRATIONAL  3 I'd 

reason  or  with  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament,  the  sentiments  quotef* 
above  are  quite  Trinitarian  in  their  character;  and  it  is  undeniable  tha 
Bacon  himself  was  a  Trinitarian,  and,  with  all  his  greatness,  not  entirelv 
free  from  the  errors  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived.  These  "  Paradoxes  " 
have  been  esteemed  so  orthodox,  and  so  full  of  "  godly  truths,"  that,  about 
the  middle  of  the  last  century,  they  were  several  times  republished  in 
London  as  a  penny  tract,  with  a  Preface  by  a  clergyman  of  the  name  of 
F.  Green,  for  the  use  of  "the  poorer  sort  of  Christians."  See  note  iu 
Bacon's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  401. 

That  the  great  philosopher  to  whom  we  have  referred  was  capable  of 
penning  such  contradictions,  is  confirmed  by  the  following  remark  from  his 
De  Aug.  ScienL,  lib.  ix.,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Yates  in  Vindication  of  Unitarian- 
isni,  p.  278,  fourth  edition:  "  The  more  absurd  and  incredible  any  divine 
mystery  is,  the  greater  honor  we  do  to  God  in  believing  it,  and  so  much  the 
more  noble  the  victory  of  fiiith."  Well  maj--  Papists,  in  their  defences  of 
Transubstantiation,  triumph  over  Protestants  who  adopt  such  principles. 

This  is  the  great  mystery,  Three  and  One,  and  One  and  Three. 
Men  and  angels  were  made  for  this  spectacle :  we  cannot  comprehend 
it,  and  therefore  must  admire  it  O  luminosissimfB  TenebrrB  !  Light 
darkness.  .  .  .  They  were  the  more  Three  because  One,  and  the  more 
One  becaus?  Three.  Were  there  nothing  to  draw  us  to  desire  to  be 
dissolved  but  this,  it  were  enough.  —  Dr.  Thomas  Mantox  :  Sermons 
on  John  xvii. ;  vol.  ii.  p.  307. 

That  there  is  one  divine  nature  or  essence,  common  unto  three 
persons  incomprehensibly  united,  and  ineffixlily  distinguished ;  united 
in  essential  attributes,  distinguished  by  peculiar  idioms  and  relations ; 
all  equally  infinite  in  every  divine  perfection,  each  different  from  other 
in  order  and  manner  of  subsistence  ;  that  there  is  a  mutual  inexistence 
of  one  in  all,  and  all  in  one ;  a  communication  without  any  deprivation 
or  diminution  in  the  communicant;  an  eternal  generation  and  an 
eternal  procession,  without  precedence  or  succession,  without  proper 
causality  or  dependence ;  a  Father  imparting  his  own,  and  the  Son 
receiving  his  Father's,  life,  and  a  Spirit  issuing  from  both,  without  any 
division  or  multiplication  of  essence,  —  these  are  notions  which  may 
well  puzzle  our  reason  in  conceiving  how  they  agree,  but  should  not 
stagger  our  faith  in  assenting  that  they  are  true ;  upon  which  we 
should  meditate,  not  with  hope  to  comprehend,  but  with  dispositions 
to  admire,  veihng  our  faces  in  the  presence,  and  prostrating  our  reason 
at  the  feet,  of  wisdom  so  for  transcending  us.  —  Dr.  Isaac  Barrow  : 
Defence  of  the  Blessed  Trinittj ;  in  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  150. 

Methinks  there  be  not  impossibilities  enough  in  religion  for  an 
active  fkitli :   the  deepest  mysteries  ours  contains  have  not  only  l)efin 


320       THE  DOGMA  OF  A  TRIUNE  GOD  IRRATIONAL. 

illustrated,  but  maintained,  by  syllogism  and  the  rule  of  reason.  1 
love  to  lose  myself  in  a  mystery,  —  to  pursue  my  reason  to  an  O  alii- 
tudo !  'Tis  my  solitary  recreation  to  pose  my  a])])rehension  with  those 
involved  enigmas  and  riddles  of  the  Trinity,  inairnution,  and  resur- 
rection, I  can  answer  all  the  objections  of  S.itiin  and  my  rebellious 
reason  with  that  odd  resolution  4  learned  of  Teutulliax,  "  Certum 
est  quia  impossibile  est "  [It  is  cerUiin  because  impossible].  I  desire 
to  exercise  my  faith  in  the  difficultest  point ;  for  to  credit  ordinary 
and  visible  objects  is  not  faith,  but  persuasion.  .  .  .  This,  I  think,  is  no 
Aoilgar  part  of  faith,  to  believe  a  thing  not  only  above,  but  contrary  to, 
reason,  and  against  the  arguments  of  om*  proper  senses.  .  .  .  There  is 
no  attriljute  that  adds  more  difficulty  to  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity, 
where,  though  in  a  rekitive  way  of  Father  and  Son,  we  must  deny  a 
priority.  —  Sir  Thomas  Browne  :  Reiigio  Medici,  sects.  9,  10,  12 ; 
in  Works,  voL  ii.  pp.  332,  334-5. 

Referring  to  the  "  Ultnifidianism  "  of  this  learned  physician,  as  Cole- 
ridge expresses  it,  Arclibishop  Tillotson.  in  Ser.  194  ( Works,  vol.  x.  ISO), 
makes  the  following  very  sensible  remark:  "I  know  not  what  some  men 
may  find  in  themselves;  but  I  must  freely  acknowledge  that  I»could  never 
yet  attain  to  that  bold  and  liardy  degree  of  faith  as  to  believe  any  thing  for 
this  reason,  because  it  was  impossible." 

I  ever  did,  and  ever  shall,  look  ujjon  those  apprehensions  of  God 
to  be  the  truest,  wlicreliy  we  aj)prc>hen(l  liim  to  be  the  most  incom- 
prehensilile,  and  tliat  to  be  the  most  true  of  God  which  seems  most 
impossible  unto  us.  Upon  this  ground,  tlicrefore,  it  is  that  the  mys- 
teries of  the  gospel,  which  I  am  less  able  to  conceive,  I  think  myself 
the  more  obliged  to  believe;  especially  this  mystery  of  mysteries,  the 
Trinity  in  Unity,  and  Unity  in  Trinity,  which  I  am  so  far  from  being 
able  to  compreliend,  or  indeed  to  apprehend,  that  I  cannot  set  myself 
seriously  to  think  of  it,  or  to  screw  up  my  tliouglits  a  little  concerning 
it,  but  I  immediately  lose  myself  as  in  a  trance  or  ecstasy.  That  God 
the  Father  should  be  one  periect  God  of  liimself,  God  tlie  Son  one 
perfect  God  of  himself,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost  one  perfect  God  of 
himself;  and  yet  that  these  three  should  be  but  one  pcrl'ect  God 
of  himself,  so  tliat  one  should  be  jjerfectly  three,  and  three  ])erfectly 
one;  tliat  tlie  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Gliost  shoukl  l)e  three,  and  yet 
but  one;  but  one,  and  yet  tlux'C, —  oh  heart-am;izing,  thouglit-devour- 
ing,  unconceival)le  mjstery!  Wlio  cannot  believe  it  to  be  true  of 
the  glorious  Deity?  —  Bisiiop  Beveridge:  Private  Tliougfds  on 
Religion,  Ait.  HI.  pp.  52-3. 


THE  DOGMA  OF  A  TRIUNE  GOU  IRRATIONAL.        321 

For  that  any  one  should  be  both  Father  and  Son  to  the  same  per« 
son  [to  Da^•id],  produce  himself,  be  cause  and  effect  too,  and  ao  the 
copy  give  being  to  its  original,  seems  at  first  sight  so  very  strange 
and  unaccountable,  that,  were  it  not  to  be  adored  as  a  mystery,  it 
Mould  be  exploded  as  a  contradiction.  —  Dr.  R.  South  :  Sermons, 
vol.  iii.  p.  240. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Communication  of  Properties  is  as  intelligible 
as  if  one  were  to  say  that  there  is  a  circle  which  is  so  united  with 
a  triangle,  that  the  circle  has  the  properties  of  the  triangle,  and  the 
triangle  those  of  the  ch'cle.  —  Le  Clerc,  apud  Rev.  J.  H.  Thorn. 

Tlie  revelation  of  it  [the  blessed  Trinity]  is, ...  I  conoei\e,  an 
absolute  demonstration  of  its  truth ;  because  it  is  a  mystery  which  by 
nature  could  not  possibly  have  entered  into  the  imagination  of  man. 
.  •  .  Faith  in  these  [mysteries]  is  more  acceptable  to  God  than  faith 
in  less  absti'use  articles  of  our  religion,  because  it  pays  that  honor 
which  is  due  to  his  testimonj' ;  and  the  more  seemingly  incredible  the 
matter  is  which  we  believe,  the  more  respect  we  show  to  the  relater 
of  it. —  Dr.  Edw.  Young  :  Letter  on  Infidelity  ;  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  14. 

Objections  have  likewise  been  raised  to  the  divine  authority  of  this 
religion  from  the  incredibility  of  some  of  its  doctrines,  particularly  of 
those  concerning  the  Trinity,  and  atonement  for  sin  by  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  Christ ;  the  one  contradicting  all  the  principles  of  human 
reason,  and  the  other  all  our  ideas  of  divine  justice.  .  .  .  That  three 
Beings  should  be  one  Being,  is  a  proposition  which  certainly  contra- 
dicts reason,  that  is,  our  reason ;  but  it  does  not  from  thence  follow, 
that  it  cannot  be  true ;  for  thei-e  are  many  propositions  which  contra- 
dict om*  reason,  and  yet  are  demonstral)ly  true.  —  SoAME  Jenyns  : 
View  of  the  Internal  Evidence  of  the  Christ.  Religion,  pp.  134-5. 

If,  as  we  believe,  a  Triune  God  and  other  kindred  doctrines  were  not 
taught  by  Jesus  and  liis  apostles,  one  of  the  strongest  arguments  for  the 
rejection  of  Christianity  would  be  annihilated;  and  our  holy  religion,  when 
found  to  be  perfectly  compatible  with  the  highest  reason,  would  draw  the 
respect,  if  not  the  unqualified  assent  and  submission,  of  every  thoughtful 
and  inquiring  mind. 

In  this  awfully  stupendous  manner,  at  which  Reason  stands  aghast, 
and  Faith  herself  is  half  confounded,  was  the  grace  of  God  to  man  at 
length  manifested.  —  Bisiiop  IIurd  :  Sermons  preached  at  Lincoln's 
Inn,  vol.  ii.  (Sermon  17),  p.  287. 

Bishop  HuHi)  here  refers  to  the  incarnation  of  what  he  calls  "  the  second 
person  in  the  glorious  Trhiity,"  and  to  the  atonement  made  by  him. 


.^22  THE   DOGJr.V   OF   A   TRIUXE   GOD   IRnATIOXA 

When  it  is  proposed  to  me  to  affirm,  that  "  in  the  unity  of  the 
Godhead  tliere  be  three  persons,  of  one  sulistmcc,  j)ower,  and  eter- 
nity, —  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,"  —  I  have  difficulty 
enough !  my  understanding  is  uivolved  in  perplexity,  my  conceptions 
bewildered  in  the  thickest  darkness.  I  pause,  I  hesitate ;  I  ask  what 
necessity  there  is  for  making  such  a  declaration.  .  .  .  But  does  not 
this  confound  all  our  conceptions,  and  make  us  use  words  without 
meaning  ?  I  think  it  does.  I  profess  and  proclaim  my  confusion  in 
the  most  miequivocal  manner :  I  make  it  an  essential  part  of  my 
declaration.  Did  I  pretend  to  understand  what  I  say,  1  might  be  a 
Tritheist  or  an  Infidel ;  but  I  could  not  both  worship  the  one  true 
God,  and  acknowledge  Jesus  Christ  to  be  Lord  of  all.  .  .  .  It  might 
tend  to  promote  moderation,  and,  in  the  end,  agreement,  if  we  were 
uidustrious  on  all  occasions  to  represent  our  own  doctrine  [respecting 
the  Trinity]  as  wholly  unintelligible.  —  Dr.  Joun  Hey  :  Lectures  in 
Dmnity,  vol.  ii.  pp.  249,  251,  253. 

"  Tlieology  teaches,"  says  a  passage  in  a  Protestant  work,  "  that 
there  is  in  God  one  Essence,  two  Processions,  three  Persons,  four 
Relations,  five  Notions,  and  the  Circumincession,  which  the  Greeks 
c;ill  Perichoresis."  ....  What  follows  is  still  more  to  my  purj)ose ; 
but  I  cannot  bring  myself  to  transcribe  any  further.  —  AUCHBISIIOP 
WilATELY  :   Elements  of  Logic ;  Ai)pcnd.  I.,  Art.  "  Person." 

My  belief  in  the  Trinity  is  based  on  the  authority  of  the  church : 
no  other  authority  is  sufficient.  I  will  now  show  from  reason,  that 
the  Athanasian  Creed  and  Scriptm-e  are  opposed  to  one  another.  The 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  tliis :  Tliere  is  one  God  in  three  jjersons,  — 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  The  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God, 
and  tlie  Holy  Ghost  is  (lod.  Mind,  the  Father  is  one  person,  the 
Son  is  another  pei'son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  another  ])erson.  Now, 
according  to  every  principle  of  mathematics,  arithmetic,  human  wis- 
dom, and  policy,  there  must  be  three  Gods ;  lor  no  one  could  s;i}-  tliat 
there  are  three  persons  and  three  Gods,  and  yet  only  one  God.  .  .  . 
The  Athanasiim  Creed  gives  the  universal  opinion  of  the  church,  that 
tlie  Father  is  uncreated,  the  Son  uncreated,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
uncreated ;  tliat  they  existed  from  all  eternity.  Now,  the  Son  was 
born  of  the  Father,  and,  if  born,  must  have  been  created.  The  Holy 
Ghost  must  also  have  been  created,  as  he  came  from  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  And,  if  so,  there  must  have  been  a  time  when  they  did  not 
exist.  If  they  did  not  exist,  they  must  have  been  created ;  and  tliere- 
fore  to  assprt  tliat  they  are  elernal  is  absui'd,  and  bangs  nonsensa. 


THE  DOGMA   OF   A   TRIUNE  GOD   IRRATIONAL.  323 

Each  has  his  distinct  personality :  each  has  his  own  essence.  How, 
then,  can  they  be  one  Eternal  ?  How  can  they  be  all  God  ?  Absiu-d. 
The  Athanasiun  Creed  says  that  they  are  three  persons,  and  still  only 
.me  God.  Absurd ;  extravagant !  This  is  rejected  by  Arians,  Soci- 
nians,  Presbyterians,  and  eveiy  man  following  human  reason.  The 
Creed  further  says  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  and 
of  man,  "  not  by  conversion  of  the  Godhead  into  flesh,  but  by  taking 
of  the  manhood  into  God."  Now,  I  ask  you,  did  the  Divinity  absorb 
the  manhood  ?  He  could  not  be,  at  the  same  time,  one  person  and 
*wo  persons.  I  have  now  proved  the  Trinity  opposed  to  human  rea- 
son. —  James  Hughes,  Koman  Catholic  Priest,  of  Newport  Pratt, 
county  Mayo;  apud  Bible  Christian  for  January,  1839. 

It  would  be  an  ungi'ateful  task  to  collect,  and  to  present  to  the  reader, 
other  definitions  arid  descriptions  of  the  dogma  of  a  Triune  God,  and  other 
admissions  of  its  unintelligibility  or  its  contradictions;  for,  so  far  as  we  can 
judge,  they  are  all  more  or  less  obscure,  inconsistent,  or  absurd.  Enough, 
then,  of  such  jargon;  enough  of  a  confusion  which  could  not  well  be 
"worse  confounded,"  —  of  "a  counsel  darkened  by  words  without"  the 
faintest  ray  of  "  knowledge."  Let  those  who  choose,  "  pose  their  appre- 
hension with  the  involved  enigmas  and  riddles  of  the  Trinity,  and  the 
Incarnation  "  of  a  "  God  the  Son;  "  let  those  who  will,  "  honor,"  or  as  we 
would  say  disimnor,  the  bounteous  Author  of  their  intellect  by  believing,  if 
they  can  believe,  what  is  "  absurd  and  incredible;  "  let  them  reason,  or  rather 
abuse  their  rational  faculties  by  arguing,  in  favor  of  the  propriety  and  the 
dutj'  of  "  prostrating  their  understandings  "  before  dogmas  which  are  "  im- 
possible;" let  one,  speaking  of  "the  mystery  of  mysteries,  the  Trinity  in 
Unity  and  Unity  in  Trinity,"  exclaim,  in  the  language  of  superlative  non- 
sense, 0  laminosissinue  Tenebra  J  and  another  acknowledge  that  at  the 
scheme  of  redemption,  of  which  this  is  deemed  an  essential  part,  "  Reason 
stands  aghast,  and  Faith  herself  is  half  confounded."  But  for  us,  sickened 
by  such  representations  and  such  confessions, — for  us,  with  a  Bible  in  our 
hands  which  says  nought  of  divine  pluralities,  of  holy  trinities,  of  ineffable 
generations  and  processions,  of  tripersonal  modes  and  developments;  of 
distnict  hypostases,  persons,  or  subsistences;  of  infinite  minds,  spirits,  or 
beings;  of  triune  substances,  essences,  or  natures;  of  perichoreses,  circum 
incessions,  or  inexistences  and  permeations, —  for  us,  when  it  is  contrasted 
witii  the  daring  speculations  of  Platonic  and  Christian  Trinitarians,  there  is 
a  sacred  and  an  inexpressible  charm  in  one  plain,  simple  precept,  or  in  one 
clear  and  heavenly  aspiration,  from  the  lips  of  the  great  Master,  "  When  ye 
nray,  say,  Ouk  Fathkk,  hallowed  be  thy  name; "  "  Father,  .  .  .  tiiis  is  life 
eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  Goi>,  and  Jtsus  Christ 
wliom  thou  hasl  sent;"  or  in  one  out  of  the  many  explicit  statements  of 
Paul's  belief,  "  There  is  02<e  God,  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  men, 
the  man  Christ  Jesus." 


32-i  PAXUISTICAL  AND  SCHOLASTIC  TERMS. 


SECT.  III.  —  TUEOLOGICU.  TERMS  EITHER  UNINTELLIGIBLE  AND  USE- 
LESS,  IF  NOT  PERNICIOUS ;  OR  EXPRESSIVE  OF  IDEAS,  AND  SHOULD 
THEREFORE   BE   CLIiUlLY   DEFINED. 

What  is  not  intelligible  is  eitlier  untrue  or  nseless.  —  Bdhben. 

I  wonder  most,  tliat  men,  when  they  have  amused  and  puzzled  themselves  and  othen 
with  hard  words,  should  call  this  explaining  things.  — Tuxoison. 

Tlie  purity  of  Scrij)ture  ought  to  be  preserved,  and  man  should 
not  presume  to  speak,  in  his  own  language  more  periectly  than  God 
spoke  in  his.  .  .  .  Who  undcrstinds  tilings  belonging  to  God  better 
than  God  himself'  ?  Let  wretched  mortiils  give  honor  to  God,  and 
either  confess  that  they  do  not  understand  his  words,  or  cease  to 
profane  them  with  their  own  new  and  peculiar  expressions ;  so  that 
divine  wisdom,  lovely  in  its  genuine  form,  may  remain  to  us  pure.  — 
Martin  Luther  :  Confut.  Rat.  Latom.,  tom.  ii.  fol.  240. 

In  these  remarks,  the  great  German  RefoiTner,  taking  for  granted  the 
plenary  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  refers  in  particular  to  the  term  hoiiwousion, 
"  consubstantial,"  the  introihiction  of  which  into  the  uomenchiture  of  Chris- 
tian theology  has  been  proJuctive  of  so  much  evil. 

St.  Paid  left  an  excellent  precept  to  the  church  to  avoid  pro/anas 
vocum  novitaies,  "  the  profane  newness  of  words ; "  that  is,  it  is  fit 
that  the  mysteries  revealed  in  Scripture  should  be  preached  and 
taught  in  the  words  of  the  Scripture,  and  with  that  simplicity,  open- 
ness, easiness,  and  candor,  and  not  with  new  and  unhallowed  words, 
such  as  that  of  "  Transubstivntiation."  —  Jeremy  Taylor  :  A  Dis' 
suasive  from  Popery,  part  ii.  book  ii.  §  3. 

Referring  to  this  passage  in  his  "  Notes"  (Works,  vol.  v.  p.  244),  Cole- 
Kiuc.K  asks,  "  Are  not,  then,  Trinity,  Triunity,  Hypostasis,  Pcrichoresis, 
Diphysis,  and  others,  excluded?"  —  a  question  which  we  would  venture  to 
answer,  by  asserting  that  no  injury  would  have  been  done  to  the  gospel,  if 
imscripturiil  terms  had  never  been  adopted  in  the  fornmlns  of  the  church. 

Great  difficulty,  I  acknowledge,  there  is  in  the  exi)lic;ition  of  it 
[the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity],  in  which  the  farther  we  go  beyond  what 
God  has  thouglit  fit  to  reveal  to  us  in  Scripture  concerning  it,  the 
more  we  are  ontuigled ;  and  tliat  which  men  are  pleased  to  aiil  an 
explaining  of  it,  does,  in  my  a])prehcnsion,  often  make  it  more  ol)scure, 
tliat  Ls,  less  pkiin  than  it  was  before ;  which  does  not  so  very  well  agree 


PATRISTICAL   AND   SCHOLASTIC   TEItMS.  325 

Will  a  pretence  of  explication It  cannot  be  denied  but  that 

these  s])eculiitive  and  very  acute  men  [the  schoohnen],  who  wrought 
a  great  part  of  theii-  divinity  out  of  their  own  brains,  as  spiders  do 
cobwebs  out  of  their  own  bowels,  have  stixrted  a  thousand  subtleties 
about  this  mystery,  such  as  no  Clu-istian  is  bound  to  trouble  his  head 
■withal ;  much  less  is  it  necessary  for  him  to  understand  those  niceties 
which  we  may  reasonably  presume  that  they  who  talk  of  them  did 
themselves  never  thoroughly  understand,  and  least  of  all  is  it  neces- 
sary to  believe  them A  man  may  be  "  a  barbarian  "  that 

speitks  to  people  in  unknown  phrases  and  metaphors,  as  well  as  "  he 
tliat  speaks  in  an  unlvnown  tongue ;  "  and  the  very  same  reason  that 
obligeth  us  to  put  the  Scripture  into  a  known  language  doth  6blige 
men  to  explain  the  doctrines  contained  in  it  by  such  phrases  and 
metaphors  as  are  known  and  used  in  that  language.  ...  If  men  would 
but  content  themselves  with  those  plain  and  simple  descriptions  which 
the  Scripture  gives  us  of  faith,  there  could  not  be  any  great  difference 
about  it.  —  Archbishop  Tillotson  :  Sermons  44,  48 ;  in  Works, 
vol.  iii.  pp.  215,  288,  and  vol.  xi.  p.  259. 

"  Essence  "  and  "  hypostasis,"  "  substance,"  "  subsistence,"  "  per- 
son," "existence,"  "natm-e,"  &c.,  are  terms  vei'y  differently  used  by 
Greek  and  Latin  fathers  in  this  dispute,  and  have  very  much  obscured 
this  doctrine,  instead  of  explaining  it.  —  Dr.  William  Sherlock  : 
Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  sect.  v.  p.  101. 

We  can  believe  a  thing  no  further  than  we  understiind  the  terms 
in  which  it  is  proposed  to  us ;  for  faith  concerns  only  the  truth  and 
falsehood  of  propositions,  and  the  terms  of  which  a  proposition  con- 
sists must  be  first  understood  before  we  can  pronounce  any  thing 
concerning  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  it ;  which  is  nothing  else  but  the 
agreement  or  disagreement  of  its  terms,  or  the  ideas  expressed  by 
them.  If  I  have  no  knowledge  at  all  of  the  meaning  of  the  terms 
used  in  a  proposition,  I  c;\nnot  exercise  any  act  of  my  understanding 
about  it ;  I  amnot  say  I  believe  or  disbelieve  any  thing ;  .  . .  and  if  I 
have  but  a  general,  confused  notion  of  the  terms,  I  can  only  givR 

a  general,  confused  assent  to  the  proposition Fi'om  whence  it 

follows,  that  terms  and  simple  ideas  must  be  clearly  and  distinctly 
understood  first,  before  we  c;m  believe  any  thing  particular  of  the 
respects  and  relations  they  bear  to  one  another,  which  is  the  only 

proper  object  of  faith Whatever  words   we  use,  whether 

"  person,"  "  hypostasis,"  or  any  other  we  Ciin  invent,  they  all  signify 
the  same  thing ;  that  is,  some  lund  of  distinction  we  do  not  under- 

28 


32G  PATIUSTICAL   AND  SCUOLASTIC  TERMS. 

Stand.  And  we  may  rack  our  thoughts,  tire  our  imaginations,  and 
break  all  the  filires  of  our  l)rain,  and  yet  never  be  able  to  deliver  ourw 
selves  clearer.  —  Dr.  KoiiKRT  Souru  :  Considerations  concerning  tlve 
TriiiiUj,  pp.  14-16,  33-4. 

Lideed,  let  any  pro])osition  be  delivered  to  us  as  coming  from  God 
or  from  man,  we  can  believe  it  no  farther  than  we  understiuid  it ;  and 
therefore,  if  we  do  not  understand  it  at  all,  we  cannot  beheve  it  at  all, 
—  I  mean,  explicitly,  —  but  only  be  persuaded  that  it  contiins  some 
truth  or  other,  though  we  know  not  what.  Again :  were  any  doctrine 
laid  down  which  we  clearly  saw  to  be  self-contradictory,  or  otiierwise 
absurd,  that  could  never  be  an  object  of  our  faith  ;  for  there  is  no 
possibility  of  admitting,  upon  any  authority,  a  thing  for  true  which 
we  evidently  perceive  to  be  false.  Nor  would  calling  such  docti'uies 
*•  mysterious "  mend  the  matter  in  the  least.  For,  indeed,  there  is 
no  mystery  in  them :  they  are  as  plain  as  any  in  nature,  as  plainly 
contrary  to  truth  as  any  thing  else  is  agreeable  to  it.  —  Archbishop 
Seckkk  :  Sermons,  No.  XVIII.  vol.  iv.  p.  384. 

Several  of  the  early  disputes  .  .  .  took  theu-  rise  from  the  affecta- 
tion of  employing  higli-sounding  titles.  Hence,  in  a  great  measurCi 
the  noise  that  was  raised  about  the  terms  6/ioovawc,  duoiovatoc,  vTiooTaai^, 
inoaTa-iKbc,  &eot6koc,  XptaroTOKog,  when  first  introduced  into  their  tlieo- 
logv.  To  these  terms  the  Latins  had  no  single  words  properly  cor- 
responding. AuGUSTiXE,  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  Latin 
fathers,  seems  to  have  been  so  sensil)le  of  this  defect  in  discoursing 
on  the  Trinity  (1.  v.  c.  9),  that  he  apologizes  for  his  language,  and 
considers  the  expressions  he  employs  as  only  preferable  to  a  total 
silence  on  the  subject,  but  not  as  equally  adapted  with  the  Greek. 
"Dictum  est,"  says  he,  "tres  persona;,  non  ut  illud  diceretur,  sed  ne 
taccretur."  The  truth  is,  so  little  do  the  Greek  terms  and  th.o  Latin, 
on  this  subject,  corresjjond,  tivat,  if  you  regard  the  ordinary  significa- 
tions of  the  words  (and  1  know  not  whence  else  we  should  get  a 
meaning  to  them),  the  doctrine  of  the  East  was  one,  and  that  of  the 
West  was  another,  on  this  article.  Li  the  East,  it  was  "  one  essence 
and  three  substances,"  fua  ovaia,  rpng  vnoaTuaeig  :  in  the  West,  it  was 
"one  substance  and  three  persons,"  una  substanlia,  tres  ptrsona. 
The  j)hi-ascs  rpta  npoauTzu  in  Greek,  tres  substantife  in  Latin,  would 
both,  I  imagine,  have  been  exposed  to  the  charge  of  Tritheism.  liut 
which  of  the  two,  the  Greek  or  tlie  Latin  jjliraseology,  was  most  suited 
to  the  truth  of  the  case,  is  a  question  I  will  not  tiike  uikhi  me  to 
delernuiie.     I  s'udl  only  say  of  Augustine's  apology,  that  it  is  a  verj 


PATRISTICAL  AND  SCHOLASTIC   TERMS.  327 

odd  one,  and  seems  to  imply,  that,  on  subjects  abo^'e  oiir  comprehen- 
sion, and  to  which  all  human  elocution  is  inadequate,  it  is  better  to 
speak  nonsense  than  be  silent.  It  were  to  be  wished,  that,  on  topics 
so  sublime,  men  had  thought  proper  to  confine  themselves  to  the  sim- 
ple but  majestic  diction  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures Religion,  the 

Christian  religion  in  particular,  has  alwajs  been  miderstood  to  require 
faith  in  its  principles ;  and  faith  in  principles  requires  some  degree  of 
knowledge  or  apprehension  of  those  principles.  If  total  ignorance 
should  prevail,  how  could  men  be  said  to  believe  that  of  which  they 
knew  nothing  ?  The  schoohnen  have  devised  an  excellent  succeda- 
neum  to  supply  the  place  of  real  belief;  which  necessarily  implies  that 
the  thing  believed  is,  in  some  sort,  apprehended  by  the  understanding. 
This  succedaneum  they  have  denominated  "  implicit  faith ; "  an  in- 
genious method  of  reconciling  things  incompatible,  to  believe  every 
thing,  and  to  know  nothing,  not  so  much  as  the  terms  of  the  proposi- 
tions which  we  beUeve.  —  Dr.  Georgk  Campbell  :  Ecclesiastical 
History,  Led.  14  and  23  ;  or  pp.  242-3,  383. 

Nothing  affords  such  an  endless  subject  of  debate  as  a  doctiine 
above  the,  reach  of  human  understanding,  and  expressed  in  thfe 
ambiguous  and  improper  terms  of  human  language,  such  as  "per- 
sons," "  generation,"  "  substance,"  &c.,  which,  in  this  controversy, 
either  convey  no  ideas  at  all,  or  false  ones.  .  .».  It  is  difficult  to  con 
ceive  what  our  fliith  gains  by  being  entertained  with  a  cerU\in  number 
of  sounds.  K  a  Chinese  should  explain  a  term  of  his  language  which 
I  did  not  understand,  by  another  term  which  he  knew  beforehand 
that  I  understood  as  little,  his  conduct  would  be  justly  considered 
as  an  insult  against  the  rules  of  conversation  and  good  breeding ;  and 
I  think  it  is  an  equal  violation  of  the  equitable  jjrinciples  of  candid 
controversy  to  offer,  as  illustrations,  propositions  or  terms  that  ai'c 
as  unintelligible  and  o])scure  as  the  thing  to  be  illustrated.  —  Dr. 
Archibald  Maclaixe  :  jYote  in  his  Translation  of  Mosheim's 
Ecclesiastical  History,  cent,  xviii.  §  27. 

The  language  of  Scripture  is  the  language  of  common  sense,  —  the 
piam,  artless  Language  of  nature.  Why  should  writers  adopt  such 
language  as  renders  their  meaning  obscure;  and  rfbt  only  obscure, 
but  unintelligil)le;  and  not  only  unintelligible,  but  utterly  lost  in  the 
strangeness  of  their  phraseology?  —  Dr.  Timothy  Dwight;  apud 
Morgridge's  True  Believer's  Defence,  p.  18. 

The  superabunchnce  of  phrases  appropriated  by  some  pious  authors 
to  tlie  subject  of  religion,  and  never  applied  to  any  other  purpose,  lias 


328  PATRISTICAL   AND  SCHOLASTIC   TEIIMS. 

not  only  the  effect  of  disgusting  persons  of  taste,  but  of  obscuring 
religion  itself.  As  they  are  seldom  defined,  and  never  exchanged  for 
equivalent  words,  they  pass  current  without  being  understood.  They 
are  not  the  vehicle  —  they  are  the  substitute  —  of  thought.  Among 
a  certain  description  of  Christians,  they  become  liy  degrees  to  be 
regarded  with  a  mystic  awe ;  insomuch  that,  if  a  writer  expressed  the 
very  same  ideas  in  different  phrases,  he  would  be  condemned  as  s 
heretic.  To  quit  the  magical  circle  of  words,  in  which  many  Chris- 
tians suffer  themselves  to  be  confined,  excites  as  great  a  clamor  as  the 
boldest  mnovation  in  sentiment.  Controversies,  which  have  been 
agitiited  with  much  warmth,  might  often  have  been  amicably  adjusted, 
or  even  fiiwUy  decided,  could  the  respective  partisans  have  been  pre- 
vailed on  to  lay  aside  their  predilection  for  phrases,  and  honestly 
resolve  to  examine  their  real  import.  In  defiance  of  the  dictates  of 
candor  and  good  sense,  these  have  been  obstinately  retained,  and  have 
usually  been  the  refuge  of  ignorance,  the  apple  of  discord,  and  the 
watchwords  of  religious  hostility.  —  IIobert  Hall  :  Review  of 
Fosters  Essaijs ;  in  Works,  vol,  ii.  p.  243. 

I  may  understixnd  many  things  which  I  do  not  believe ;  but  I 
cannot  believe  any  thing  which  I  do  not  understand,  unless  it  be 
something  addressed  merely  to  my  senses,  and  not  to  my  thinking 
faculty.  A  man  may  with  great  propriety  say,  "I  understand  the 
Cartesian  system  of  vortices,  though  I  don't  beUeve  in  it ; "  but  it  is 
absolutely  impossible  for  him  to  believe  in  that  system  without  know- 
ing what  it  is.  A  man  may  believe  in  the  ability  of  the  maker  of  a 
system,  without  understiuiding  it ;  but  he  cixnnot  believe  in  the  system 
itsell',  without  imderstmding  it.  —  Thomas  Erskine,  Esq.,  Advocate  : 
Essay  on  Faith,  p.  25. 

Words  which  we  do  not  understand  are  like  words  spoken  in  an 
unknown  language :  we  can  neither  believe  them  nor  disbelieve  them, 
beciuise  we  do  not  know  what  they  si\y.  For  instance,  I  repeat  these 
words,  Tovg  TTuvTug  rifiug  (^avepuOi/vai  6d  ^/xirpoadev  tov  iSf/uaToc  tov  XptoTov. 
Now,  if  I  were  to  ask,  "  Do  you  believe  these  words  ?  "  is  it  not  mani- 
fest that  all  of  you  who  know  Greek  enough  to  understand  them  may 
also  believe  them ;  but,  of  those  who  do  not  know  Greek,  not  a  single 
person  can  yet  believe  them  ?  They  are  as  words  spoken  to  the  air. 
Ikit  wiien  I  add  tliat  these  words  mean,  "  We  must  all  stiuid  before 
the  jiKlgment-scat  of  Christ,"  now  we  can  all  believe  them,  l)ccause 
we  GUI  all  undorstiuul  them.  —  Dii.  Tiiomas  AlusoLD :  Sermons  on 
the  Cliristian  Life,  pp.  2'Jl-2. 


PATRISTICAL   AND   SCUOLASTIC   TERMS. 


32J 


The  clanger  of  being  not  merely  not  understood,  but  misunderstood, 
should  be  guarded  against  most  sedulously  by  all  who  wish  not  only 
to  keep  clear  of  error,  but  to  inculcate  important  truth,  —  by  seldom 
or  never  emploj  ing  this  ambiguous  word  ["  person  "j  without  some 
expLviation  or  caution.  For  if  we  employ,  without  any  such  care, 
terms  which  we  must  be  sensible  are  likely  to  mislead,  at  least  the 
unlearned  and  the  unthinking,  we  cannot  stand  acquitted  on  the  plea 

of  not  having  dii-ectly  inculcated  error To  claim  an  uninquiring 

assent  to  expressions  of  man's  framing  (however  judiciously  framed), 
without  even  an  attempt  to  ascertain  theii'  meaning,  is  to  flvU  into  one 
of  the  worst  errors  of  the  Romanists.  —  Archbishop  Whately  : 
Elements  of  Logic,  Append.  I.,  art.  "  Person." 

To  the  admirers  of  this  liberal-minded  primate,  it  would  have  been  gra- 
tifying, had  he  stated,  a  little  more  clearly  and  candidly  than  he  has  done, 
his  own  conceptions  of  the  theological  import  of  the  word  "  person; "  and 
had  he  told  them,  whether,  when  speaking  of  the  three  persons  in  the  God- 
head, he  means  three  names,  relations,  offices,  characters;  three  somewhats; 
or  three  distinct  intelligent  agents.  The  tendency  of  the  article,  however, 
seems  to  us  favorable  to  some  form  or  other  of  the  Sabellian  theory. 

Not  only  have  professed  theologians,  but  private  Cliristians,  been 
imposed  on  by  the  specious  religion  of  terms  of  theology ;  and  have 
betrayed  often  a  fond  zeal  in  the  service  of  their  idol-abstractions,  not 
unlike  that  of  the  people  of  old,  who  are  said  to  have  beaten  the  air 
with  spears  to  expel  the  foreign  gods  by  whom  their  country  was 
supposed  to  be  occupied.  For  my  part,  I  believe  it  to  be  one  of  the 
cliief  causes  of  the  infidelity  which  prevails  among  speculative  men. 

The  schoolmen  are  express  in  pointing  out,  after  Augustine, 

that  the  term  [persona]  was  adopted,  not  to  express  any  definite 
notion,  but  to  make  some  answer  where  silence  would  have  lieen 
better ;  to  denote,  by  some  term,  what  has  no  suitiible  word  to  express 
it.  "  Tres  nescio  quid  "  is  the  expression  of  Anselm,  in  his  "  Mono- 
logium."  —  Bishop  Hampden:  Bampton  Lectures,  pp.  55-6,  133. 


By  the  cnncessions  of  eminent  Trinitarians,  we  have,  in  this  section, 
exhibited  a  very  obvious  though  an  often-neglected  principle,  that,  especially 
in  matters  of  religion,  no  phraseology  should  be  adopted  which  does  not 
express  ideas  or  sentiments  capable  of  being  understood.  With  regard,  then, 
to  tlie  unscriptural  words  used  to  set  forth  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  there 
is  only  one  alternative,  —  either  to  acknowledge  that  they  have  no  import, 
and  should  never  be  employed ;  or  to  allow  that  they  are  representatives  of 
ideas,  an  I  should  be  clearly  defined  or  explained.     According  to  the  former 

28* 


830  PATRISTICAL  AND  SCHOLASTIC   TERMS. 

admission,  the  dogma  of  a  tripersonal  Deity  is  barren,  unintelligible,  un- 
meaning; consisting  of  words  devoid  of  thoughts,  or  involved  in  sounds 
Avithout  any  signification.  Agreeably  to  the  latter,  in  keei)ing  with  whicii 
"  hypostasis,"  "  person,"  and  other  terms,  are  explained  so  as  to  be  under 
stood,  the  same  dogma  is,  as  we  have  previously  shown,  resolvable  only  into 
one  of  two  principles,  —  Tritheism  or  Sabellianism;  three  Gods  or  three 
relations;  a  Trinity  of  eternal  beings,  either  equal  or  unequal,  either  self- 
existent,  or,  as  respects  two  of  the  agents,  derived  and  dej)endent,  —  or  a 
sort  of  Unitarianism,  which,  while  adhering  essentially  to  the  tenet  of  God's 
oneness,  would  annihilate,  by  its  mysticism,  the  clear  distinction  made 
everywhere  in  the  Christian  Scriptures  between  the  universal  Father  and 
his  onlj'-begotten  or  best-beloved  Son. 

We  would  not  oppugn  the  motives  of  our  Trinitarian  brethren,  or  ques- 
tion the  sincerity  of  their  professions.  With  all  her  absurdities.  Orthodoxy 
has  held  in  her  ranks  many  great  and  excellent  men,  some  of  them  an  honor 
to  their  race.  But  the  wisest  and  the  best  often  deceive  themselves;  and 
there  are  few  who  do  not  feel  easily  persuaded  of  the  truth  of  opinions, 
which,  though  inconsistent  with  reason,  are  hallowed  by  tradition  or  by 
early  and  pious  associations.  An  assent  may  therefore  be  given  to  proposi- 
tions expressing  the  dogma  of  a  Triune  God,  from  a  feeling,  that,  though 
unintelligible  or  contrary  to  common  sense,  they  may  be  true;  but  assuredly 
there  can  be  no  real,  luiqualified,  rational  conviction  of  their  truth.  If  a  mau 
says  that  there  are  three  somewhats,  distinctions,  or  diversities  in  one  God, 
but  has  no  conception  of  the  meaning  of  the  terms  employed,  he  cannot  be 
said  to  believe  this  proposition,  any  more  than  he  could  be  said  to  believe  it, 
if,  without  previous  concert,  he  heard  it  ainiounced  in  a  language  of  which 
he  was  ignorant.  If  he  states  that  there  are  three  intelligent,  infinite,  equal 
persons  in  one  infinite,  intelligent,  supreme  being,  and  is  unable,  as  we  have 
proved,  to  attach  any  other  signification  to  the  word  "  person,"  with  its 
qualifying  epithets,  than  to  the  word  "  being,"  he  virtually  aflirms  that  three 
beings  are  only  one,  —  which  is  an  absurdity.  And  if,  varying  again  the 
eicpression,  he  asserts  that  there  are  three  names,  relatives,  characters,  or 
impersonations  in  the  one  God,  this  he  may  indeed  believe;  but,  so  soon  as 
he  declares  that  one  of  these  names,  relatives,  characters,  or  impersonations, 
addressed  the  others,  or  sent  them  into  the  world,  either  as  equals  or  subor- 
dinates in  the  divine  nature,  he  employs  terms  which  are  either  nonsensical, 
or  have  no  meaning. 

Having  thus,  by  the  aid  of  its  friends,  shown  that  the  Trinity  in  Unity, 
or  Unity  in  Trinity,  is  a  doctrine  opposed  to  human  reason,  we  proceed,  in 
the  next  chapter,  to  use  weapons  drawn  from  the  same  armory,  with  the  view 
of  demolishing  the  position,  that  Trinitarianism  is  contained  in  the  records  of 
divine  revelatiou. 


331 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE   TRINITY  IN  UNITY,  AND    THE    DEITY   OF    CHRIST,  NOT 
DOCTRINES   OF  REVELATION. 


SECT.  I.  —  THE  TERMS  "  TRINITY,  TRIUNE   GOD,  PERSON,  HYPOSTASIS, 
HOMOOUSION,"   ETC.,   UNSCRIPTURAL  AND  IMPROPER. 

All  mysteries  in  the  world  are  wholly  supported  by  hard  and  unintelligible  terms 

Sir  Thomas  Browne. 

We  ought  to  believe  that  there  are  three  persons  and  one  essence 
in  the  Deit}^,  —  God  the  Father  unbegotten,  God  the  Son  consubstan' 
tial  with  the  Father,  and  God  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeding  from  both. 
But,  though  you  attentively  peruse  the  whole  of  Scripture,  you  will 
never  find  these  sublime  and  remarkable  words,  "  Three  persons ; 
one  essence ;  unbegotten ;  consubstantial ;  proceeding  from  both."  — 
CoCHL^US ;  apud  Sandium,  pp.  4,  5. 

The  word  "  Trinity  "  is  never  found  in  the  Divine  Records,  but  is 
only  of  human  invention,  and  therefore  sounds  altogether  frigidly 
(frigide).     Far  better  would  it  be  to  say  "God"  than  "Trinity." 

Tliere  is  no  reason  for  objecting  to  me,  that  the  word  "  ho- 

moousion  "  was  made  use  of  in  opposition  to  the  Arians.  It  was  not 
received  by  many  of  the  most  eminent  men,  Jerome  himself  having 
wished  to  abolish  the  term ;  and,  on  this  account,  they  did  not  escajje 
peril.  .  .  .  But,  though  from  my  soul  I  abhor  the  word  "  homoousion," 
and  am  unwilHng  to  employ  it,  I  shall  not  therefore  be  a  heretic.  — ■ 
Martin  Luther:  Postil.  Major.,  fol.  282;  Confut.  Rat.  Lalom., 
torn.  ii.  fol.  240. 

The  word  "  consubstantial "  {d/ioovaioc),  I  confess,  is  not  to  be  found 
in  the  Scripture.  —  John  Calvin  :  Institutes,  book  iv.  chap.  \in.  16. 

The  phrase,  "  Holy  Trinity,  one  God,"  is  dangerous  and  impro- 
per.—  Lambert  Daneau:  Rcsp.  ad  Genebrard.  cap.  iii. ;  OptisciUa, 
p.  1327 


332  TRINITARIAN   TERMS   UNSCRIPTUKAL. 

The  words  "  Trinity,"  "  homoousion,""  hypostasis,"  "  procession,"  &a 
(which,  for  the  better  expressing  of  the  GithoUc  sense,  they  were  forced 
to  use),  were  not  expressly  to  be  found  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  — 
Bp.  Sanderson:  M  Clerum,  a  Sermon  preached  Oct.  >S,  1641,  p.  6. 

The  words  "  Trinity,"  "  person,"  "  homoousion,"  and  others  of  a 
similar  kind,  besides  being  ambiguous,  .  .  .  never  occur  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. —  PuiLIP  LiMBORCU  :  Theologia  Christiana,  lib.  vii.  cap.  21, 
§  13. 

This  doctrine  [that  from  the  eternal  essence  there  proceeded,  from 
all  eternity,  two  other  essences,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit]  cannot 
be  expressed  in  an  intelligible  manner  in  the  phrase,  style,  and  dialect 
of  the  Holy  Scripture  alone ;  which  may  give  no  small  cause  of  sus- 
picion, were  there  no  other  reason  besides,  that  it  is  not  the  doctrine 
of  the  apostles.  There  is  no  authority  upon  eaith  that  c;xn  oblige  us 
to  substitute  any  expressions  invented  smce  the  time  of  the  apostles 
to  those  that  these  holy  and  inspired  men  themselves  used.  —  John 
Le  Clerc  :  Abstract  of  Dr.  Clarke's  Polemical  Writings,  p.  126. 

In  p.  113,  Le  Clekc  says  tliat  he  prefers  to  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke's  views 
the  common  opinion  as  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity. 

It  must  be  allowed  that  there  is  no  such  proposition  as  this,  tliat 
**one  and  the  same  God  is  three  ditferent  jjersons,"  formally  and  in 
terms,  to  be  found  in  the  S.icred  Writings,  either  of  the  Old  or  New 
Testiiment ;  neither  is  it  pretended  tliat  there  is  any  word  of  the  same 
signification  or  imporbmce  with  the  word  "  Trinity,"  used  in  Scripture, 
with  relation  to  God.  —  Dr.  IIorkrt  South  :  Considerations  con- 
cerning the  Trinitif,  j).  38. 

The  title  of  "  Mather  of  God,"  applied  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  is  not 
perhaps  so  innocent  as  Dr.  MosHEl.M  tiUves  it  to  be.  .  .  .  The  indention 
and  use  of  such  mysterious  terms  as  have  no  place  in  Scriptiu-e  are 

undoubtedly  pernicious  to  true  religion Thkophilus  of  An- 

tioch  [who  died  about  the  year  181,  was]  the  first  who  made  use  of 
the  word  "  Trinity "  to  express  the  distinction  of  what  divines  call 
persons  in  the  Godhead.  The  Christian  church  is  very  little  ol)liged 
to  him  for  his  invention.  The  use  of  this  and  other  unscriptuml 
terms,  to  which  men  attiich  either  no  ideas  or  false  ones,  has  wounded 
cliarity  and  ])eace,  witliout  promoting  truth  and  knowledge.  It  has 
produced  heresies  of  the  worst  kind.  —  Dr.  ArchihaM)  Maclaink  : 
JVote  in  his  TntnsUdion  of  JMosheinis  tjcclesiastical  History,  cent,  v. 
part  ii.  chap.  5,  §  U  j  and  Chronological  Tables,  cent.  ii. 


TRINITARIAN   TERMS   UNSCRIPTURAL.  333 

It  is  my  firm  conviction,  that,  before  every  mixed  or  unlearned 
audience,  the  plain  duties  of  temperance,  modesty,  diligence,  resigna- 
tion, honesty,  veracity,  humility,  placability,  and  piety,  illustrated  again 
and  again  by  the  dignified  phraseology  of  Scripture,  and  enforced  by 
the  awful  sanctions  of  future  rewards  and  punishments,  as  prepared 
by  that  Being  who  "  spake  as  never  man  spake,"  are  more  proper  for 
the  puljjit  than  topics  known  under  the  technical  terms  of  consub- 
stmtiality  specific  and  numerical,  hypostatic  union,  eternal  filiation, 
eternal  procession,  actual  regeneration  by  special  grace,  possible  justi- 
fication by  faith  only,  supralapsarianism  and  sublapsarianism,  and  other 
phrases,  familiar,  I  gi'ant,  to  the  polemic,  dear  to  the  bigot,  and  ani- 
mating to  the  multiti|^e,  but  uncouth  to  the  ear  and  unedifying  to 
the  heart  of  many  well-informed  and  well-disposed  Christians.  —  Dr. 
Samuel  Parr  :  Works,  vol,  v.  pp.  llS-19. 

Tliis  version  ["  the  express  image  of  his  person"  Heb.  i.  3]  has 
given  rise  to  the  opinion,  that  the  word  "  person,"  as  applied  to  the 
Trinity,  is  scriptural.  The  Greek  word  vmaTaaig,  however,  signifies 
substance  or  essence.  It  is  true  that  in  ecclesiastical  Greek  it  is  also 
used  to  denote  person ;  but  this  signification  had  not  been  given  to  it 
when  the  New  Testament  was  written.  After  the  rise  of  the  Arian 
controversy,  the  word  viv6aTaat,g  beg-an  to  be  used  for  person ;  but,  at 
an  early  period,  that  sense  was  unknown.  The  term  "  person,"  there- 
fore, is  not  found  in  Scripture  in  the  sense  in  which  we  usually  speak 
of  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity.  —  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson  : 
Soared  Hermeneutics,  pp.  23-4. 

But  tliis  writer  approves  of  the  use  of  the  word  in  its  dogmatic  sense. 

The  name  of  "  purgatory "  scarcely  requires  a  passing  comment. 
It  has,  indeed,  been  made  a  topic  of  abuse,  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
not  to  be  found  in  Scripture.  B^ut  where  is  the  word  "  Trinity  "  to 
be  met  with  ?  Where  is  the  word  "  Incarnation  "  to  be  read  in  Scrip- 
ture .-'  Where  are  many  other  terms,  held  most  sacred  and  important 
in  the  Christian  religion  ?  —  Cardinal  Wiseman  :  Lectures  on  the 
Doctrines  oj  the  Caiholic  Church,  vol.  ii.  p.  50. 

It  is  admitted  also  by  Krasmus,  Tili.otson,  Hey,  Tomlise,  and  many 
others,  that  the  words  and  phrases  here  spoken  of  do  not  occur  in  tlie  Bible. 
But  where  is  the  man  who  would  venture  to  say  that  they  doV  Combining 
this  fact  with  what  seems  equally  obvious,  that  there  are  no  other  terms  in 
which  a  Trinity  in  Unity  can  be  expressed  than  those  which  have  been 
nsed  by  theologians,  it  will  foUow  that  the  doctriua  itself  is  not  revealed  in 
Holy  Scripture 


334  THE  DOCTRLNE  OF  A  TRIUNE  GOD 


WECT.  n.  —  THE  DOCTRIXE  OF  A  TRIUNE  GOD,  OR  OF  THE  DEITY  OF 
CHRIST,  NOT  KE^'EALED  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  OR  KNOWN  TO 
THE  JEWS, 

He  takes  false  shadows  for  true  substancps.  —  Shakspearb. 

§  1.  Not  hevealed  in  the  Old  Testament. 

It  is  e%ident,  that,  from  the  authorities  of  the  Old  Testament, 
sufficient  and  clear  proof  caimot  be  drawn  either  for  the  Trinity,  or 
for  a  plurality  of  divine  persons.  —  Bishop  'ji^STAT :  Op.,  torn.  xii. ; 
De  Sand.  Trin.,  p.  14. 

The  mystery  of  the  most  Holy  Trinity  had  never  at  any  time  jjene- 
trated  the  mind,  however  excellent,  or  inquisitive  as  to  divine  matters ; 
nor  could  it ;  but  to  the  gospel  alone  the  disclosure  and  prciiching  of 
that  mystery  were  reserved.  .  .  .  That  article  was  not  laid  down  in  the 
Old  Testament  as  an  object  of  belief,  because  the,people  as  yet  were 
inciipable  of  receiving  it.  The  unity  of  God  was,  however,  inculcated 
in  the  law,  in  opposition  to  idolatry ;  whence  this  first  conmiand,  "  Hear, 
O  Israel !  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  God,"  Deut.  vi.  4.  —  Salmeron  : 
Comm.,  tom.  i.  pp.  201-2;  Prolog,  xi.  can.  xxv. 

The  mystery  of  the  most  holy  Trinity  was  not  yet  [at  the  time  of 
Christ]  divulged,  so  that  the  Jews  could  expressly  believe  that  he  was 
by  nature  the  Son  of  God,  God  of  God,  of  one  substi^nce,  power,  and 
glory  with  God  the  Father.  This  doctrine  Jesus  reserved  to  himself 
to  promulg-ate ;  .  .  .  though  he  did  not  at  the  beginnhig  expressly 
teach  it  to  his  disciples,  but  led  them  to  it  by  degrees.  —  LucAS 
Brugensis  on  John  i.  49. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  not  propounded  expressly  to  the 
Jews  in  the  Old  Testament,  because  they  were  incapable  of  it,  &c.  — 
Cardinal  Bkllarmlne  :  De  Christo,  lib.  ii.  cap.  6. 

So  say  also  Kupeutus  Tuitiensis,  Galatin,  Stkuchus  Eugubinu8, 
Salabeht,  iind  other  Rotn:iii  Ciitliulic  commentators. 

The  glorious  mystery  of  the  Trinity  came  hereby  to  be  unfolded 
more  clearly,  if  not  the  first  discovery  made  of  the  three  persons 
hereby,  there  being  scarce  the  footsteps  of  them  distinctly  and  clearly 
to  be  seen  in  tlie  works  of  tlie  creation  or  in  the  law.  But  now,  when 
the  gospel  ciime  to  be  revealed,  &c.  —  L)k.  Thomas  Goodwin  :  iVorka, 
vol.  L  jjart  iii.  p.  05. 


NOT  REVEALED  IN   THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  335 

I  think  that  it  [the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity]  was  a  thing  not  only 
locked  up  from  the  researches  of  reason  amongst  those  that  were  led 
only  by  reason,  —  I  mean  the  Gentiles,  —  but  that  it  was  also  con- 
cealed from,  or  at  best  but  obscurely  known  by,  the  Jewish  church. 
. .  .  That  God  did  so  [conceal  it],  the  Old  Testament,  which  is  the 
great  ark  and  repository  of  the  Jewish  religion,  seems  sufficiently  to 
declare ;  there  being  no  text  in  it  that  plainly  and  expressly  holds 
forth  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead.  Several  texts  are,  indeed, 
ui-ged  for  that  purpose ;  though,  whatever  they  may  allude  to,  they 
seem  not  yet  to  be  of  that  force  and  evidence  as  to  infer  what  some 
imdertake  to  prove  by  them ;  such  as  are  Gen.  i.  1,  26.   Isa.  vi.  3. 

I  conclude  that  it  is  very  probable  that  the  discovery  of  tliis 

mystery  was  a  2)rivilege  reserved  to  bless  the  times  of  Christianity 
withal,  and  that  the  Jews  had  either  none,  or  but  a  very  weak  and 
confused  knowledge  of  it  —  Dr.  Robert  South  :  Sermons,  vol.  iv. 
pp.  296-301. 

Take  the  Old  Testament  ^vithout  the  New,  and  it  must  be  confessed 
that  it  will  not  be  easy  to  prove  tlais  article  [that  of  the  Trinity]  from 
it.  —  Bishop  Burnet  :  Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  Art.  i. 
p.  43. 

No  one  can  take  from  the  Jews  those  traditions  of  the  Trinity 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  scattered  here  and  there  in  the  Scripture. 
It  was  by  these  that  God  prepared  the  minds  of  men  to  receive  that 
incomprehensible  mystery.  At  the  same  time,  he  conducted  the 
people  slowly,  step  by  step ;  and  the  knowledge  of  that  great  truth 
was  proportioned  to  an  economy  covered  with  shadows  and  figures. 
If,  in  spite  of  the  light  which  the  evangelists  have  shed  upon  It,  and 
the  accomplishment  of  prophecy,  which  of  all  commentaries  is  the 
clearest  and  most  intelligible,  we  still  can  with  difficulty  discover 
the  Trinity  in  the  Old  Testament,  one  may  presume  that  the  Jews 
paid  but  little  attention  to  it,  and  that,  with  all  their  research,  they 
had  but  a  very  obscure  perception  of  this  dogma.  .  .  .  There  is  reason 
to  fear,  that  these  men,  who  do  not  see  the  Trinity  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, where  it  is  clearly  expressed,  will  have  still  greater  difficulty 
in  discovering  it  in  the  Old,  where  it  is  only  obscurely  intimated.  — - 
Basnage  :  History  of  the  Jews,  b.  iv.  c.  5 ;  apud  Blomf  eld's  Dissert, 
upon  the  Traditional  Knowledge  of  a  Promised  Redeemer,  p.  168. 

There  are  no  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  which  indicate  a  Tri- 
nity [of  persons  in  the  Godhiad].  —  UiiDERLElN :  Institutio  Thfologt 
Christiani,  §  113. 


336  rUE  DOCTRINE  OF   A   TRIUNE   GOD 

As  no  passage  in  the  Old  Testament  satisfactorilj*  proves  that  the 
writers  had  any  knowledge  of  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  as  it 
is  not  at  all  probable  that  among  the  llel)rews,  who  on  various  occa- 
sions manifested  a  jjroneness  towards  Polytheism,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  such  as  is  exhibited  in  the  Christian  church,  could  be  rightly 
understood,  or  be  imparted  without  exerting  an  injurious  effect  on  the 
worship  of  the  one  true  God,  I  am  of  opinion  that,  &c.  —  II.  A. 
ScnoiT  :   Opiiscula,  tom.  ii.  p.  56. 

Calixtus  gave  occasion  for  increasing  the  strife,  by  a  disputation 
on  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  which  Dr.  Jo.  Latermann  wrote  and 
defended  under  him,  in  1645 ;  in  which  it  was  maintained  tliat  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  not  made  known  to  the  fathers  under 
the  Old  Testament ;  and  that  it  was  a  created  angel,  and  not  the  Son 
of  God,  who  appeared  to  the  patriarchs.  —  John  It.  SciilkGEL,  as 
quoted  by  Dr.  Murdoch  in  his  edition  of  .Mosheims  Ecclesiastical 
History,  vol.  iii.  p.  374. 

A  disciple  of  the  school  of  Voltixire  might  indeed  object,  that  what 
the  l&xrned  divines  at  any  period  in  the  history  of  the  church  did  not 
know,  was  at  all  events  known  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  he  might 
have  t<\ught  it  to  them.  To  which  question  I  would  only  reply  by 
asking,  AVhy  did  the  same  Spirit,  who  spake  by  the  mouth  of  the 
prophets  under  the  old  covenant,  merely  declare  the  unity  of  the  God- 
head, and  not  the  Trinity,  by  the  mouth  of  Moses,  to  the  chosen 
people  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  will  probably  refer,  on  the  one 
hand,  to  the  plan  of  the  Divine  Wisdom  for  the  education  of  the 
Jewish  peoj)le,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  the  Polytheism  of  the  ancient 
world,  wliich  made  such  a  strict  oi)i)osition  necess;iry.  —  GUENTIIKR, 
as  quoted  in  Archd.  Hare's  Mission  of  the  Comforter,  vol.  ii.  j).  432. 

1  do  not  say  that  you  will  find  the  doctrine  [of  the  Trinity],  which 
we  have  been  proclaiming  to-day,  in  this  chapter  [Ezek.  i.].  1  do  not 
believe  that  you  can.  I  have  not  the  slightest  wish  to  hnd  it  there, 
or  to  jjut  it  there.  It  would  be  a  shock  to  all  my  convictions,  if  I 
thouglit  that  Ezekiel  was  enunciating  a  dogma  when  he  professed  to 
be  recording  a  vision;  or  that  the  mystery,  which,  as  tlie  church 
teaches  by  the  order  of  her  services,  could  not  be  revealed  till  Christ 
was  glorified  and  the  Spirit  given,  was  already  made  known  to  the 
prophet  as  he  sat  among  the  Ciiptives  by  the  river  Chebar.  I  cannot 
say  how  much  mischief  seems  to  me  to  be  done,  when,  instead  of 
striving  to  follow  strictly  the  actual  sfcitements  of  the  01d-Test;iment 
writers,  we  insist  upon  wringing  out  of  texts  or  symbols,  which  we 


NOT  REVEAXED  IN   TUE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  337 

have  moulded  according  to  our  fancy,  the  proof  of  some  New-Tes- 
Uunent  revelation.  .  .  .  Ezekiel  had  been  taught  upon  his  mother's 
knees  the  words,  "  liear,  O  Israel !  the  Lord  tliy  God  is  one  Lord."  — 
F.  D.  Maurice  :  Prophets  and  Kings,  pp.  429-30. 

[1]  Prior  to  this  moment  [of  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos],  there 
has  been  no  appearance  of  Trinity  in  the  revelations  God  has  made  of 
his  being;  but  just  here,  —  whether  as  I'esulting  from  the  incarnation, 
or  as  implied  in  it,  we  are  not  informed,  —  a  threefold  personality  or 

impersonation  of  God  begins  to  offer  itself  to  view The  word 

"  spirit"  had  been  used  before,  as  in  reference  to  the  agency  of  God, 
but  only  in  a  remoter  and  more  tropical  sense,  as  the  word  "  Father  " 
had  been :  the  conception  of  a  divine  personality  or  impersonation, 
cidled  the  IIol}-  Spirit,  was  unknown.  We  may  imagine  otherwise  in 
one  or  two  cases,  us  when  David  pra}-s,  "  Take  not  thy  holy  spirit  from 

me,"  but,  I  think,  without  anj'  sufficient  reason [2]  The  Old 

Testament  .  .  .  not  only  reveals  oneness,  leaving  the  matter  of  three- 
ness  to  be  revealed  afterward,  as  some  might  imagine,  but  it  so  reveals 
the  onaness  as  to  exclude  any  suspicion  or  thought  of  threeness;  and 
.so  that  every  pious  Jew,  between  Abraham  and  Christ,  would  have 
msisted  on  a  unity  of  person  in  the  God  of  their  worship,  opposed  to 
every  conception  of  threeness ;  and  would  have  referred,  without  hesi- 
tation, to  Moses  and  the  prophets  for  his  proofs.  —  Dr.  Horace 

BUSHNELL. 

The  passages  numbered  [1]  are  quoted  from  "  God  in  Christ,"  pp.  147-  8, 
172;  that  numbered  [2]  is  from  "  Clnnst  in  Theology,"  pp.  165-6. 

We  have  seen  the  full  and  explicit  testimonies  given  to  the  unity 
and  jjersonality  of  the  Deity.  .  .  .  Respecting  the  divine  nature  as 
involvaig  a  Trinity  of  persons,  though  it  may  be  implied  or  dimly 
intimated,  no  declaration  is  made.  This  is  a  distinctive  doctrine  of 
the  New  Testament.  The  fact  that  God  existed  as  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  is  not  co-eval  with  its  enunciation ;  nor  is  the  knowledge 
of  this  fact  necessarily  connected  with  any  acts  of  the  Divine  Being 
■which  imply  such  a  peculiarity  in  his  essence.  ...  To  our  minds, 
already  enlarged  with  other  views  of  the  divine  economj',  it  may  be 
easy  to  perceive,  tliat  God,  in  many  of  his  interpositions  before  the 
advent  of  Christ,  did  still  communicate  ^vith  men  in  the  person  of  his 
Son,  or  in  the  person  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Is  there  decisive  evidence 
that  the  flict  was  recognized  ?  Does  the  Old  Testament  contain  jjroof 
that  the  people  of  God  had  the  conception  of  a  Trinity  in  the  divine 
nature  ?  .  .  .  If  God  had  been  declared  then  as  existing  as  Father, 

29 


338  TUE   DOCTRINE  OF  A   TRIUNE  GOD 

Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  if  it  had  been  said,  "  In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  AVord  was  God,"  .  ,  . 
how  could  it  have  been  possil)le,  with  the  crude  and  uncuhivated 
minds  of  the  age,  already  accustomed  to  the  idea  of  a  multitude  of 
gods,  to  have  stojjped  short  of  the  conclusion,  that  the  Father  was  t\\f 
true  God,  and  that  the  Word  was  another  tnie  God  ?  ...  It  is  not 
unconimon  to  assume  that  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Divine  Saviour  iive 
both  revealed  in  the  Old  Tesfciment.  .  .  .  We  underst;ind  it  as  thff 
third  person  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  The  usage  in  the  Old  Testiiment 
does  not  necessarily  imjily  such  a  knowledge. ...  It  was  either  a  name 
of  God  himself,  not  indicatmg  any  peculiarity  in  his  nature,  or  the 
expression  of  the  di\ine  energy  as  it  produced  results  in  the  material 
world,  or  enlightened  and  directed  the  human  mind.  ...  In  like  man- 
ner, the  Son  of  God  was  not  known  in  his  mysterious  unity  with  tlie 
Father.  .  .  .  However  clear  it  may  be  to  our  minds,  that  many  of  tlicse 
passages  [those  which  contain  express  allusions  to  him]  are  consistent 
with  the  absolute  Divinity  of  Christ  and  of  his  co-equality  with  the 
Father,  it  is  by  no  means  evident  that  they  conveyed  such  an  idea  to 
the  Jews.  .  .  .  The  Hebrew  Scriptures,  read  in  their  independent 
obscurity,  and  ^nthout  the  solvent  for  their  almost  enigmatical  intima- 
tions which  is  furnished  by  the  New,  would  scarcely  enable  the  most 
sanguine  mind  to  discover  in  the  promised  one  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead.  Certain  it  is,  that  no  decisive  facts  can  be  adduced  to  show 
that  the  Hebrews  ever  olitained  from  their  Scriptures  a  well-defined 
8])iritual  idea  of  the  complete  character  of  Jesus,  or  were  led  to  exjject 
him  as  a  king  possessing  the  attributes  and  enjoying  tlie  throne  with 
God  himself.  .  .  .  Nowhere  is  it  indicated,  in  language  sufficiently 
exact  to  convey  the  idea  definitely,  that  the  Messiah  was  really  the 
God  of  the  Jews,  or  the  Son  of  God,  equal  in  all  divine  attributes  with 
the  Father.  It  is  quite  certain,  that,  when  Christ  appeared,  even 
those  who  knew  him  most  intimately  were  not  prepared  to  appreciate 
him  in  this  exalted  and  mysterious  character.  —  Dr.  Sktii  Sweetskii, 
in  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  January,  1851;  vol.  xi.  pp.  97-101, 


Tiiking  up,  in  our  next  vohunc,  seriatim,  :ill  tlie  texts  of  the  Old  Testii- 
ment whicli  luive  bi'cn  tliought  to  ititiniiite  the  existence  of  a  divine  Trinity 
or  plunility,  or  of  what  are  culled  the  second  and  third  persons  in  the  God- 
head, it  will  be  our  object,  by  the  continuous  aid  of  orthodox  divines,  not 
only  to  confirm  the  main  sentiment  expressed  in  the  extracts  just  made,  but 
to  prove  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  fouudution  iu  tie  Jewish  Scriptures 
hr  the  truth  of  these  dogmas. 


UNKNOWN   TO   THE  ANOIKNT  JEWS.  339 


§  2.    A  Tkiune   God  and  the   Deity  of   Christ   unknown  to  tub 
Ancient  Jews. 

The  Jews  .  .  .  expected  a  Messiah  that  would  be,  not  the  Son  of 
God  by  his  own  nature,  but  only  a  man  hke  the  other  prophets,  though 
surpassing  them  in  wisdom,  virtue,  and  capacity  to  obtain  and  govern 
tlie  whole  world.  —  PHILIP  Melancthon,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Cox  in 
his  Life  of  Melancthon,  p.  120. 

The  great  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  though  it  be  frequently  inti- 
mated in  the  Old  Testament,  yet  it  is  an  hard  matter  rightly  to  under- 
stand it  without  the  New  j  insomuch  that  the  Jews,  though  they  have 
had  the  law  above  three  thousand,  and  the  prophets  above  two  thou- 
sand, years  amongst  them,  yet  to  this  day  they  could  never  make  this 
an  article  of  taith ;  but  they,  as  well  as  the  Mahometans,  still  assert  that 
Uod  is  only  one  in  person,  as  well  as  nature.  —  BiSHOP  BeveridGE  : 
Private  Thoughts,  part  ii.  p.  66. 

Very  good;  but  where,  without  the  previous  hypothesis  of  this  doctriue, 
are  these  intimations  to  be  found  V  or,  if  they  did  exist,  how  is  it  that  they 
were  never  discovered  by  the  Jews  V 

The  ancient  prophecies  give  more  proofs  of  our  Lord's  Divinity 
than  is  generally  thought.  .  .  .  The  Jews,  probably  before,  mos|  cer- 
fciinly  after,  the  incarnation,  interpreted  tliese  expressions  in  another 
way.  They  seem  to  have  been,  in  a  great  measure,  strangers  to  the 
doctrine  1  am  explaining,  and  to  have  looked  for  nothing  in  the  Mes- 
siah's person  but  what  was  human ;  nothing  in  the  deliverance  to  be 
wrought  by  him  but  what  was  temporal.  Their  tii'st  disputes  with 
the  Christiiins  were  not  only  whether  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  but 
whether  the  Messiah  was  to  be  more  than  man ;  and  therefore  it  hath 
been  an  unsuccessful  as  well  as  useless  attempt  to  prove  this  article 
of  the  Christian  laith  from  some  obscure  passages  of  the  ancient  liab- 
bins.  —  Dii.  Tiios.  Mangey  ;  Plain  jYotions  of  our  Lord's  Divinity, 
pp.  8,  9. 

Though  the  general  belief  of  tlie  Jews  at  thiit  time  [when  Jesus 
was  on  earth]  was,  th:it  the  Messiah  would  be  a  much  greater  man 
than  David,  a  miglity  conqueror,  and  even  a  univeixd  monarch,  the 
sovereign  of  the  kings  of  the  earth,  who  was  to  subdue  all  nations, 
and  render  them  tril)utiiry  to  the  chosen  peo])le ;  yet  they  still  sujv 
posed  him  to  be  a  mere  man,  possessed  of  no  higher  nature  tlian 
that  which  he  derived  from  his  eartlily  progenitors.  —  Dii.  Geoivoe 
Campbell  :   The  Four  Gospels,  Dissert,  vii.  part  i.  §  U. 


340  THE  DOCTRINE   OF  A  TRIUNE  GOD 

To  keep  them  steadfast  in  the  belief  of  the  divine  unity  and  spint* 
uality,  was  as  much  perhaps  as  was  mtended  by  all  the  revelations  of 
speculative  doctrines  made  to  the  Israelites ;  nor  will  this  purpose 
appear  unworthy  of  all  the  means  which  the  Almigiity  made  use  of  in 
eJi'ecting  it,  whether  we  consider  their  usual  proucness  to  idolatry  and 
polytheism,  or  the  deleterious  eli'ccts  in  practice  which  have  been  uni- 
formly found  accompan)ing  these  errors  in  belief.  This  has  been 
suggested  by  an  excellent  divine  as  a  reason  why  the  doctrme  of  the 
Trinity,  wliich  forms  so  uiteresting  and  essential  a  part  of  the  orthodox 
creed,  was  not  revealed  to  the  Jews,  or  at  least  is  not  to  be  so  readily 
collected  from  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Tcstiiment,  as  it  is  from  tlie 
uniform  tenor  of  the  gospel. . . .  Had  the  Jews  been  t;iught  by  Moses, 
as  Christians  have  been  since  in  the  gospel,  that  in  the  divine  essence 
were  three  distinct  persons,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
it  is  evident,  that,  circumstanced  as  they  were,  this  doctrine  would 
liave  quickly  been  corrupted  to  smiction  the  most  pernicious  errors. . . . 
It  is,  however,  contended  by  some,  tliat  the  more  learned  Jews  in  later 
times  were  not  unacquainted  with  this  doctrine ;  and  it  is  certain  tliat 
Christians,  assisted  by  the  light  of  the  gospel,  are  enabled  to  collect 
some  very  strong  proofs  of  it  I'rom  the  writings  of  Moses  and  the  pro- 
phets.^ But  that  the  people  at  large  were  entirely  without  the  notion 
of  a  Trinity,  is  evident  enough ;  and,  in  the  scheme  of  tlie  divine  nature 
delivered  to  tliem,  they  were  not  cautioned  against  confounding  the 
persons  in  the  Gotliiead,  lest,  from  the  natural  tendency  of  weiik  minds, 
they  should  tall  into  the  opposite  extreme  of  dividing  tire  substance, 
which,  according  to  their  moral  and  intellectual  state  at  the  time,  would 
liave  proved  to  them  the  far  more  dangerous  delusion.  —  J.  Bkowne  : 
Sermons  preacfied  at  tfie  Ltduix  founded  by  John  Bampton,  \)\).  80-8. 

Instead  of  iilleging  tlisit  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  not  revealed  to 
the  Jews  because  it  would  have  led  them  to  idolatrous  practices,  we  should 
be  disposed  to  assign  another  reason,  —  that  God  is  not,  as  Trinitarians  say, 
three  persons,  but,  as  the  united  voices  of  reason  and  revelation  testify, 
only  one. 

The  opinion  of  Calixtus  [who  published,  in  1645  and  1C49,  two 
essays  against  the  notion  that  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  was  to  a  greater 
or  less  degree  known  to  the  Israehtes  at  the  time  when  the  New 
Testiiment  was  written,  at  least  that  a  plurality  in  the  Ciudhead  waa 
believed  by  them]  .  .  .  lias  gradually  obt;iined  the  approbation  of  most 
theologians  of  the  present  time.  —  G.  C.  Knai'I*  :  Christian  Tlieology, 
8ccL  xxxiv. 


UNKNOWN   TO   THE   ANCIENT   JE«"S.  341 

This  argument  [derived  from  tlie  apocryphal  Book  of  Enoch  dis- 
covered in  Abyssinia  by  James  Bruce],  in  proof  that  the  Jews,  before 
the  birth  of  Christ,  believed  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  appears  to 
nie  much  more  important  and  conclusive  than  that  which  has  been 
indeed  frequently,  but  to  my  mind,  I  confess,  not  satisfactorily,  deduced 
from  the  philosophical  principles  of  the  ancient  Cabala.  Cabalistical 
theology,  I  well  know,  has  its  ttzUuth,  or  emanations  of  Deity  ;  but 
these,  I  am  con\'inced,  notwithstanding  the  persuasions  of  many  Chris- 
tians upon  the  subject,  were  at  no  period  ever  contemjjlatcd  by  the 
Jews  themselves  as  distmct  persons,  but  merely  as  distinct  energies, 
in  the  Godhead.  Lideed,  if  the  argument  has  any  force  at  all,  it 
is  calculated  to  prove  more  than  its  advocat(;s  wish ;  for  it  goes  to 
demonstrate,  that  the  Jews  believed  in  ten,  not  in  three,  personal 
emanations  of  Deity ;  for  such  is  the  number  of  the  Sephiroth.  Ima- 
gination is  ahva)s  ready  to  discover  resemblances  where  none  in  reality 
exist;  but  sober  reasoning  can  never  surely  approve  the  indiscreet 
attempt  of  representing  Chiistian  truth  as  arrayed  in  the  meretricious 
garb  of  the  Jewish  Cabala.  That  singular,  and,  to  those  perhaps  who 
penetrate  its  exterior  surface,  fascinating  system  of  allegorical  subtle- 
ties, has,  no  doubt,  its  brighter  as  well  as  its  darker  parts,  —  its 
true  as  well  as  its  false  allusions;  but,  instead  of  reducing  its  wild 
combinations  of  opinion  to  the  standard  of  Scripture,  we  shall,  I  am 
persuaded,  be  less  likely  to  err  if  we  refer  them  to  the  ancient  and 
predominant  philosophy  of  the  East ;  from  which  they  seem  to  have 
originally  sprung,  and  from  which  they  are  as  inseparable  as  the  sha- 
dow is  from  its  substance.  —  Archbishop  Laurence  :  Preliminary 
Dissertation  on  his  Translation  of  the  Book  of  Enoch,  pp.  liv. — Ivi. 
third  edition. 

Dr.  Laukence  thinks  that  the  apocryphal  book  referred  to  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  preceding  extract  was  written  by  a  Jew,  not  many  years 
before  the  birth  of  Christ;  Moses  Stuakt,  that  it  was  composed  by  an 
oriental  Christian  Jew,  during  the  latter  half  of  the  first  century.  The 
principal  passage  on  which  the  archbishop  founds  his  opinion,  that  tlie 
ancient  Jews  believed  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  reads  as  follows:  "He 
(the  Elect  one]  shall  call  to  every  power  of  the  heavens,  to  all  the  holy  above, 
and  to  the  power  of  God.  The  Cherubim,  the  Seraphim,  and.  the  Ophanim, 
all  the  angels  of  power,  and  all  the  angels  of  the  Lords,  namely,  of  the  Elect 
one,  and  of  the  other  Power,  who  (was)  upon  earth  over  the  water  on  that 
day,  shall  raise  their  united  voice,"  iScc.  Cliap.  Ix.  13,  14.  But  nothing  is 
said  here  of  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  one  God,  or  of  the  co-equality  and  con- 
substantiality  of  "  the  Elect  one  "  and  "  tlie  other  Power."  All  thit  can  be 
inferred  is,  that  they  were  superior  to  the  angels. 

29* 


342  THE  DCCTRINE  OF   A   TIITUNE  GOD 

But  even  the  slightest  aspect  of  a  Triune  Deitj-,  if  there  be  any  In  the 
words  quoted,  is  done  away  with  in  the  following  translation  of  Dr.  A.  G. 
Hoffman,  as  cited  by  Mosf.s  Stuakt  in  his  work  on  the  Apocalypse,  vol.  i. 
p.  69:  "  Angels  of  power  and  all  angels  of  lordships  (i.e.  who  are  of  superior 
order),  and  the  Elect  and  the  other  Powers,  who  were  on  earth  over  the 
water  in  that  day;  i.e.  superior  angels  present  and  assisting  at  the  crea- 
tion." 

We  quote  another  passage  (chap.  xlvi*l,  2),  which  clearly  rei)resents  the 
"  Son  of  man  "  as  distinct  from,  and  inferior  to,  "  the  Ancient  of  days,"  or 
"  Lord  of  spirits :  "  —  "  Then  I  inquired  of  one  of  the  angels,  who  went  with 
me,  and  who  showed  me  every  secret  thing,  concerning  this  Son  of  man; 
who  he  was;  whence  he  was;  and  why  he  accompanied  the  Ancient  of  days. 
He  answered  and  said  unto  me.  This  is  the  Son  of  man,  to  whom  righteous- 
ness belongs,  with  whom  righteousness  has  dwelt,  and  who  will  reveal  all 
the  treasures  of  that  which  is  concealed;  for  the  Lord  of  spirits  has  chosen 
bim,  and  his  portion  has  surpassed  all  before  the  Lord  of  spirits  in  everlast- 
ing uprightness." 

It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  some  of  the  learned  Jews  who  resided  in 
the  East,  and  liad  intercourse  with  the  Chaldeans  and  Persians,  may  have 
imbibed  from  them  their  philosophical  notions  respecting  divine  powers  and 
intelligences  connected  with,  and  dependent  on,  the  Supreme  Being.  At 
all  events,  to  use  the  language  of  Dr.  J.  Pve  Smith  (Script.  Test.,  vol.  i. 
p.  338),  "  we  have  sullicient  evidence  that  tlie  doctrines  of  religion  [in  the 
latter  portion  of  tiie  interval  between  the  closing  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  general  diffusion  of  Christianity]  were  corrupted  even  to  the  first  prin- 
ciples, and  that  its  profession  and  practice  had  lost  almost  every  character 
of  a  reiisonable  service."  But  there  seems  no  reason  to  believe,  that  the 
great  body  of  the  Jews,  and  particularly  those  of  Palestine,  had  the  faintest 
conception  of  a  Triad  of  hypostases  in  the  divine  nature,  or  of  the  Supreme 
Divinity  of  the  expected  Messiah. 

I  cannot  but  look  upon  it  as  unfortunate,  that  PiCUS  of  Mirandola, 
and  other  writers,  should  have  quoted  these  cabalistic  forgeries  [the 
lliibbinical  and  Talniudicitl  writings]  as  supporting  the  Christian  doc- 
trines of  the  Trinity,  lnci\rnation,  &c  —  Dr.  Edward  Burton  : 
Jiamplon  Lectures,  p.  301. 

Is  it  not  monstrous,  tluit,  the  Jews  having,  according  to  "Wiiitaker 
[in  his  "  Origin  of  Arianism  Disclosed"],  fully  believed  a  Trinity,  one 
and  all,  but  half  a  century  or  less  before  Trj^pho,  Justin  should  never 
refer  to  this  general  fiiith ;  never  reproach  Trypho  with  the  present 
ojijMJsition  to  it  as  a  heresy  from  their  own  forefathers,  even  those 
who  rejected  Christ,  or  rather  Jesus  as  Christ?  But  no:  not  a  single 
objection  ever  striiies  Mr.  Wiiitaker,  or  aj)pears  worthy  of  an  answer. 
The  stupidest  become  authentic ;  the  most  fantastic  al)stractions  of  the 
Alexandrine  dreamers,  subst;mlial  realities !     I  conless  this  book  iiaa 


TJNKNOTN   TO   THE   ANCIENT  JETVS.  343 

satisfied  me  how  little  erudition  will  gain  a  man  now-a-days  the 
reputation  of  vast  learning,  if  it  be  only  accomjxinied  with  dash  and 
insolence.  —  S.  T.  Colerluge  :  Literary  Itemains  ;  in  JVorlis,  vol.  v. 
pp.  455-6. 

Dr.  Allix  undertakes  to  prove  [in  the  "  Judgment  of  the  Jewish 
Church,"  "  a  work  "  which.  Dr.  Pye  Smith  says,  is  "  not  remarkable 
for  accurate  statement  or  judicious  reasoning"],  that  the  Jews,  before 
the  time  of  Christ,  according  to  the  received  expositions  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, derived  from  tlieir  fathers,  had  a  notion  of  a  plurality  of  i)ersons 
in  the  unity  of  the  divine  essence,  and  tliat  tliis  plurality  was  a  Trinity ; 
that,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  old  synagogue,  the  Jews  appre- 
hended the  Word  as  a  true  and  projjer  person ;  and  held  that  the 
Word  was  the  Son  of  God,  —  that  he  was  the  true  God,  —  that  he 
was  to  be  Jehovah  indeed.  I  confess  that  I  am  not  prepared  to  go  to 
the  full  length  of  these  positions.  I  think  it  in  the  highest  degree 
probable  .  .  .  that  the  Jews  expected  a  Messiah  who  should  be  a 
sharer  in  the  divine  nature,  but  not  one  who  should  be  equal  with 
God.  We  cannot  easily  believe,  that  even  the  more  enlightened  of 
their  nation  had  such  a  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  their  Christ  as  we 
derive  from  the  recorded  testimony  of  our  Sa\'iom-  and  his  apostles ; 
nor,  if  it  be  granted  that  they  looked  for  a  divine  Iledeemer,  does  it 
necessarily  follow  tliat  they  thought  him  equal  to,  much  less  uniteU 
with,  the  Supreme  God.  .  .  .  That  they  should  Imve  expected  their 
Messiah  to  have  been  very  and  perfect  God,  of  one  substance  with  the 
Father,  is,  I  think,  more  than  we  are  warranted  in  asserting.  This 
I  believe  to  have  been  one  of  those  subHme  docti'ines  which  were 
reserved  for  the  fuller  disclosure  of  the  great  mystery  of  godliness. 
High  and  majestic  as  were  the  titles  which  the  prophets  had  appl'ed 
to  the  Messiah,  —  titles  importmg  nothing  less  than  his  being  invested 
with  the  most  striking  attributes  of  the  Deity,  —  yet  they  were  qua- 
hfied  by  many  descriptions  which  imphed  that  he  was  to  be  subject  to 
the  accidents  of  human  nature;  so  that,  in  all  likeUhood,  the  Jews 
expected  that  he  who  was  described  in  their  Scriptures  both  as  Son 
of  God  and  Son  of  man  was  to  be  a  divine  being,  of  transcendent 
power  and  dignity,  yet  acting  with  delegated  authority,  and  shining 
with  imparted  light.  —  Bisiiop  Elomeield  :  Dissertation  upon  the 
Traditional  Knowledge  of  a  Promised  Redeemer,  jjp.  96-8. 

In  his  Preface,  p.  iv.,  the  Iciinieil  prehitc  acknowledges  that  the  Jewish 
commentaries  have  been  corrupted  frum  the  inipi  re  fountains  of  heatlien 
philosophy. 


344  »  THE  DOCTKIXE  OF   A  TRIUNE  GOD 

Nor  would  sucli  a  mytluis  [as  that  of  the  miraculous  conception,  if 
it  were  a  mythus]  have  been  consistent  with  Jewish  modes  of  thought, 
.  .  .  Such  a  fible  as  the  bii-th  of  the  Messiali  from  a  vu-gin  could  have 
arisen  anywhere  else  earlier  than  among  the  Jews.  Their  doctrine 
of  the  Divine  Unity,  which  placed  an  impassable  gulf  between  God  and 
the  world ;  their  high  regard  for  the  marriage-relation,  which  led  them 
to  at)hor  unwedded  life ;  and,  above  all,  their  full  persuasion  that  the 
Messiah  was  to  be  an  ordinary  man,  undistinguished  by  any  thing 
supernatural,  and  not  to  be  endowed  with  di^■ine  [jower,  before  the 
time  of  his  solemn  consecration  to  the  Messiahship,  —  all  cons])ired 
to  render  such  an  invention  impossible  among  them. — AUGUSTUS 
Ne-VNDER  :  Life  of  Jesits,  pp.  14,  15. 

[1]  Were  the  Jews  Trinitiirians,  before  the  coming  of  Christ  ?  I 
know  of  no  s;xtisfactory  evidence  of  this  fact.  All  the  efforts  to  jjrove 
it  ha\e  ended  in  mere  appeals  to  ciibalizing  Jews,  who  lived  long  after 

the  New  Testament  was  written [2]  If  it  be  true,  as  some 

assert,  that  the  Jews  of  our  Saviour's  time,  I)efore  they  became  Chris- 
tians, were  accustomed  to  believe  tliat  their  Messiah  was  to  be  a  divine 
person,  how  can  it  be  accounted  for,  that,  after  the  first  generation  of 
Christians  among  them,  the  great  Ijody  of  Jewisli  converts  in  Pales- 
tine, and  many  elsewhere,  became  Ebionites,  the  ])eculiarity  of  wliose 
opinion  was  a  denial  of  the  divine  nature  of  that  Saviour  whom  they 
professed  to  honor  ?  If  all  the  tendency  of  their  education  and  tradi- 
tional behef  had  been  as  stated  above,  this  fact  seems  to  be  altogether 
unaccountable.  It  speaks  more  than  volumes  of  mere  reasoning  from 
conjecture,  or  from  the  declarations  of  Ilabbins  Hving  long  after  the 
Ciiristian  era  had  commenced ;  of  which  we  find  sucli  striking  exam- 
ples in  P.  Alijx's  learned  book  on  ancient  Jewish  opinions.  .  .  .  How 
much  tlie  pious  Jews  of  ancient  times  actually  deduced  from  such 
passages  [of  the  Old  Test;iment  as  appear  to  ascril)e  a  divine  nature  to 
the  Messiah,  and  to  set  forth  the  Spirit  of  God  as  a  divine  person]  we 
do  not  know;  and  we  possess  no  adequate  means  of  determining. 
But  that  the  later  Jews,  and  in  particular  those  cotemporary  with  tlie 
apostles,  knew  nothing  of  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity,  seems  to  be  ren- 
dered nearly  certiin  I'rom  the  fact,  that  neither  Josephus,  nor  Philo  in 
all  his  numerous  speculations  on  the  suliject  of  religion,  gives  any  inti- 
mation of  this.  Whatever  there  is  in  Philo  tliat  seems  to  a]>proac'h 
to  tliis,  is  merely  the  eclectic  philosophy  intermingled  with  his  reli- 
gious views,  and  may  be  found  in  heatiien  writers  almost  or  quite  as 
fully  as  in  him.     At  all  events,  the  Naairajan  and  Ebionitish  sects,  sa 


UNKNOWN  TO   TUE  ANCIENT  JEWS.  345 

prevalent  among  early  Christian  Jews,  incontestably  prove  what  the 
usual  and  predominant  state  of  the  Jewish  mind  was.  —  MosES  Stuart. 

The  first  extract  is  taken  from  Stuart's  "  Critical  History  of  tiie  Old- 
Testument  Canon,"  p.  407;  tlie  second,  from  liis  article  on  Schleiennacher, 
in  the  "  Biblical  Repository"  for  April  and  July,  1835,  vol.  vi.  p.  107. 

The  Hebrew  people  were  little  concerned  with  metaphysical  ques- 
tions. .  .  .  That  Jehovah,  who  is  highly  exalted  above  all  that  is  finite, 
who  according  to  the  very  idea  of  him  is  invisible,  whose  very  aspect 
is  consuming,  should  come  down  to  this  world,  clothe  himself  with  a 
costume  that  is  finite,  and  become  man,  —  tliis  thought  is  wholly 
foreign  to  the  Hebrew  religion,  in  itself  considered.  Much  rather 
must  we  admit,  that  the  Hebrew  religion  glories  in  the  fact,  that,  in 
opposition  to  the  heathen  world,  it  holds  flist  the  holy  personality  of 
Jehovah,  pure  and  highly  exalted  above  nature  and  the  whole  world ; 
but  this  it  could  not  do,  if  it  had  established  a  bjiovoLa,  e.g.  of  humanity 
with  Divinity  in  any  sense.  To  keep  itself  above  all  natural  religion, 
the  moral  view  taken  by  the  Hebrew  religion  must  form  for  itself  such 
a  metaphysical  view  of  the  relation  between  God  and  the  world,  as 
lay  far  distant  from  God's  becoming  a  man ;  yea,  even  such  an  one 
that  the  Hebrew  world  would  shudder  and  be  astonished  at  a  thought 
like  this.  —  J.  A.  Douner,  apud  Stuart,  in  Bib.  Scu:.,  voL  vii.  p.  699. 

EXPLANATION    OF   THE    PHRASE,   "  WORD    OF    THE    LORD,"    OCCURRING    IN 
THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  AND   IN  OTHER  JEWISH   WRITINGS. 

I  do  not  think  that  we  ought  to  use,  as  an  authority,  the  last  para- 
phrases, m  which  is  often  found  the  term  "  Word,"  when  God  is 
spoken  of,  —  I  say,  that  we  ought  not  to  use  them  as  an  authority  to 
prove  the  Divinity  of  the  Word  in  the  New  Testament.  Such  ex- 
pressions are  explained  by  the  Jews  otherwise  than  by  Christians; 
and,  besides,  it  is  not  judicious  to  make  the  truths  of  Christianity 
depend  or.  uncertain  allegories,  which  are  most  commonly  founded  on 
the  imagination  of  the  Jewish  doctors.  —  Father  Simon  :  Histnirc 
Critique  du  Vieux  Testament,  liv.  iii.  chap.  24. 

With  much  better  reason  the  same  Frenchman  disapproves  of  the 
use  of  the  Targums  for  the  proof  of  the  'koyog,  or  Word,  in  that  sense 
in  which  we  find  it  expressed  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Gospel  of  St. 
John.  For  through  all  those  Targums,  in  a  great  numl)er  of  places 
where  mention  is  made  of  God  in  the  original  Hebrew,  it  being  ren- 
dered "  the  word  of  God "  in  the  Chaldee  interpretation,  hence  the 


346  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  A   TRIUNE  GOD 

Chaldee  Memra,  which  m  that  phrase  signifieth  "  the  "Word,"  hath 
been  thouglit  to  correspond  with  the  Greek  Xoyog  in  that  Gospel,  and 
both  exactly  to  denote  the  same  thing.  And,  therefore,  several  learned 
men  have  endeavored  to  explain  the  one  by  the  other,  and  from  hence 
to  prove  the  ])ivinity  of  our  Saviour.  But  others,  as  well  as  Monsieur 
SiMOX,  being  sensible  that  this  phrase  in  the  Chaldee  being  an  idiom 
in  that  language,  which  may  be  otherwise  explained,  they  are  against 
pressing  any  argument  from  it  for  this  point,  because  it  is  capable 
of  an  answer  to  which  we  cannot  well  reply.  —  Dr.  II.  Priukaux  : 
Th(  Old  and  JVew  Testament  Connected,  vol.  ii.  pp.  355-6. 

Though  they  [namely,  the  li;ibbins]  frequently  used  the  expression, 
"J"?!  ^"3'?"'^>  ^^'^^  '^'  '^  word  of  God,  especially  in  their  Targums  or 
parajjhrases,  they  did  not  mean  to  express  a  separate  and  distinct 
being  from  Jehovah  himself,  or,  as  we  should  say,  the  second  person 
of  the  Trinity.  The  word  S<'1^''?a  is  frequently  used  in  the  Chaldee 
paraphrases  as  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew  CI3n,  that  is,  the  JVame,  a 
term  by  wliich  tlie  Jews  —  who,  out  of  superstitious  reverence  for  the 
word  "  Jehovah,"  avoided  the  uttering  of  it  as  much  as  possible  — 
denoted  the  Supreme  Being.  See,  for  instxnce,  Isa.  xxvi.  4,  in  the 
Chaldee  paraphrase.  —  J.  1).  Mich.\elis  :  Introduction  to  the  JVew 
Ttslament,  vol.  iii.  part  i.  pp.  280-1. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  Clu"istians  came  to  speak  of  Christ  as  the 
Word,  because,  in  tlie  Jewish  Targums,  Memra,  or  the  Word,  w;is 
substituted  for  tlie  inetfal)le  name  "  Jehovah."  The  flict  ajjpears  to 
be  partly  true ;  but  the  argument  deduced  from  it  is  extremely  fal- 
lacious. When  we  read  of  God  acting  or  speaking  by  himself,  he  is 
said  in  the  Targums  to  have  acted  or  spoken  "  by  his  word ; "  and  it 
has  been  asserted  tlut  Memra,  or  "  the  Word,"  is  used  distinctively 
for  the  Messiah.  But  it  has  been  proved  s;itisfactorily,  that  Memra  is 
never  used  in  the  Targums  for  a  distinct  and  separate  person :  it  is, 
in  fact,  only  another  form  for  the  pronoun  "  himself."  It  was  at  first 
applied  only  to  Jehovah,  as  when  he  is  said  "  to  have  sworn  by  him- 
self," or  "  to  have  made  a  covenant  between  himself  and  any  one." 
The  use  of  the  term  was  afterwards  transferred  to  human  actions; 
and  though  tlie  Targums  ajiply  it  in  those  jilaces  which  they  interpret 
of  the  Messiah,  yet  this  applicition  of  it  is  by  no  means  exclusive; 
and,  as  I  have  said,  it  is  never  used  for  a  person  separate  and  distinct 
from  tlie  principal  subject  of  the  sentence.  —  Dr.  IIoukrt  Bckton  : 
Bainpton  Lectures ;  in  Tlieological  IVorks,  vol.  iii.  jip.  221-2. 


UNKNOWN   TO   TUE    A.NCIENT  JEWS.  347 

The  following  appear  to  be  the  results  of  impartially  examining 
this  question :  1.  That  the  primary  import  of  the  Chaldee  expression 
["  the  word  of  Jah  "]  is  that,  whatever  it  may  be,  which  is  the  medium 
of  communi&iting  the  mind  and  intentions  of  one  person  to  anotlier. 
2.  That  it  hence  assumed  the  sense  of  a  reciprocal  pronoun.  3-  That, 
when  used  in  the  latter  sense,  its  most  usual  application  is  to  the 
Divine  Being ;  denoting,  if  we  may  use  the  expression,  "  God,"  "  his 
very  self,"  Deus  ipsissimus ;  and  is  the  synonyme  and  substitute 
of  the  most  exclusive  of  all  the  appellatives  of  Deity,  the  name 
"  Jehovah."  4.  That  there  is  no  certain  proof  of  its  being  distinctly 
applied  to  tlie  Messiah  in  any  of  the  Targums  now  extant ;  while,  in 
very  numerous  places,  it  is  so  plainly  used  with  personal  attributives, 
yet  in  distinction  from  the  name  of  God,  that  an  appHcation  to  the 
Messiah  cannot  be  held  improbable.  5.  That  solely  from  the  use  of 
the  phrase,  the  Memra  of  Jah,  or  "  the  word  of  the  Lord,"  in  those 
paraphrases,  no  absolute  information  can  be  deduced  concerning  the 
doctrine  of  the  Jews,  in  the  interval  between  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New,  upon  the  person  of  their  expected  Messiah.  I  have  said, 
soltly  from  the  use  of  this  phrase ;  but,  if  we  combine  this  fact  with 
others  derived  from  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  will,  I  con- 
ceive, appear  a  very  rational  conjecture,  that  the  Rabbinical  authors 
of  the  age  referred  to  had  vague  ideas  of  the  "  Woi'd  "  as  an  intelh- 
gent  agent,  the  medium  of  the  divine  operations  and  communications 
to  mankind.  I  cannot,  however,  make  this  opinion  a  ground  of  in- 
dependent argument,  as  has  been  done  by  some  writers,  who  have 
probably  taken  it  from  each  other,  in  succession,  without  much  severity 
of  examination.  —  Dr.  J.  P.  Smith  :  Scripture  Testimony,  vol.  i. 
pp.  346-7. 

It  would  be  easy  to  quote  additional  passages  of  a  similar  character,  as 
to  tlie  mciiiiing  of  the  phrase  "  Memra  or  word  of  Jah,"  from  Salmkuon, 
Gkotius,  Lewis  Capellus,  Le  Clerc,  Beausobke,  Doderlein,  aiid  otlier 
learned  men  in  the  ranks  of  the  orthodox. 

The  following  extracts  are  more  comprehensive,  explaining  the  phrase 
"  word  of  the  Lord,"  or  "  of  God,"  as  used  not  only  in  the  Targums,  but  in 
the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  Apocrypha:  — 

Some  have  endeavored  to  prove  that  the  Jews  had  some  knowledge 
of  the  Trinity,  or  at  least  of  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  from 
all  these  sources  [namely,  the  Old  Testament,  the  Apocrypha,  and  the 
Chaldaic  Paraphrases].  But  (a)  the  texts  cited  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, in  proof  of  this  point,  do  not  by  themselves  perfectly  establish 


348  THE  DOCTRINE  OF   A  TRIUNE   GOD 

it.  .  .  .  Neither  (b)  are  the  texts  cited  from  the  Apocrypha  altogether 
satisfactory.  Tlie  appellation,  Aoyof  Seov  [word  of  God],  which  occurs 
frequently  in  the  Book  of  AVisdom  and  in  Siracli,  Ciuuiot  be  clearly 
proved,  in  any  one  instance,  to  designate  a  person  of  the  Godhe;xd,  but 
signifies  either  the  divine  oracles  and  revelations,  as  Sir.  L  5,  or  the 
divine  decrees  and  will,  as  Sir.  xliii.  26.  Book  of  Wisdom,  xviii.  15, 
coll.  ix.  1;  xvi.  12.  .  .  ,  Nor  does  the  appellation  "Son  of  God," 
in  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  ii.  13-20,  designate  the  Messiah,  but,  in  a 
more  general  sense,  a  favorite  of  God,  one  aj)proved  by  Heaven, 
a  righteous  person.  The  phrase  "  Holy  Spirit,"  used  in  the  s;ime 
book  (chap.  ix.  17,  18),  there  means  only  a  holy  temper,  virtue,  tem- 
perance, continence,  sanditas  animi :  cf.  ix.  4,  10.  -  (c)  The  terms, 
•SI  *il  »'l?a"^?2,  D"""';?!!  i^y^^'^  [tJie  word  of  Jah  and  the  word  of 
God],  are  used  very  frequently  in  the  Chaldiic  paraphrases,  and  seem, 
as  there  employed,  to  designate  a  person,  and  have  therefore  been 
compared  with  the  appellation  ?Myog  ^eov,  and  considered  as  indiciiting 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  This  is  a  very  important  argument.  It 
is  doubtful,  however,  whether  these  terras  were  understood  by  the 
Jews  contemporary  with  the  paraphi-asts  as  titles  of  the  Messuih ;  or 
whether,  as  many  suppose,  they  wore  regarded  as  synonymous  with 
numen,  majestas  divina.  —  G.  C.  ICnapp  :  Lectures  on  Christian 
Theology,  sect.  xIL  L 

Dr.  Woods,  the  translator  of  Kiiapp's  Lectures,  tliinks  there  is  no  doubt 
that  in  tiie  Book  of  Wisdom,  an  iEgyptico-Jewish  production,  the  writer, 
influenced  by  tlie  extravagant  philosopiiy  of  Plato  and  of  the  East  which 
then  prevailed  at  Alexandria,  hypostatized  the  divine  attributes,  and  meant 
t<.  Kpsak  of  ''  Wisdom  "  as  a  being  who  proceeded,  before  the  creation,  from 
the  substance  of  God.  If  this  opinion  were  correct,  it  would  not  follow  that 
he  believed  the  Messiah  to  have  been  a  person  in  the  Godhead,  or  that  there 
were  three  persons  in  the  divine  nature;  nor,  if  he  had,  would  it  follow  that 
the  great  body  of  the  Jewish  nation  adopted  his  theology. 

A  careful  examination  of  the  Scriptures  will  lead  us  to  see  that 
the  Hebrews  were  accustomed  to  speak  of  the  word  of  God  in  a  man- 
ner which  not  unfrcquently  led  to  personific;ition ;  and  at  times  they 
expressed  themselves  almost  as  if  it  were  a  hypostasis.  The  founda- 
tion of  this  seems  to  be  laid  in  Gen.  i.  3 :  "  God  said,  Let  there  be 
light;  and  there  was  light."  This  is  equivalent  to  a  declaration,  that 
the  word  of  God  has  in  it  a  creative  power.  Exjjressly  after  this 
tenor  is  Ps.  xxxiii.  6 :  "  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens 
made,  and  all  the  host  of  them  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth."     There 


UXKNO'.VN   TO  THE  ANCIENT  JEWS.  349 

can  indeed  be  no  reasonable  ground  to  doubt  that  all  this  is  figurative  ; 
or,  in  other  words,  that  it  is  a  symbolical  representation  of  God's 
executive  power  or  energy.  Not  unfrequently  is  "  the  word  of  God  " 
spoken  of  in  such  a  way  as  would  seem,  at  first  view,  to  indicate  that 
it  is  regarded  as  a  being,  a  hypostasis,  which  possesses  and  exercises 
attributes  of  its  own.  Thus  it  is  said  in  Heb.  xi.  3,  that  "  the  worlds 
were  framed  by  the  word  of  God : "  so  in  2  Pet.  iii.  5.  This  loord 
is  a  life-giving  power:  Deut.  viii.  3.  Matt.  iv.  4.  Luke  iv.  4,  It 
gives  spiritual  as  well  as  physiaxl  life :  Ps.  cxix.  50.  1  Pet.  i.  23. 
It  has  attributes  or  quahties  ascribed  to  it:  Ps.  cxix.  89.  Isa.  xl.  8. 
1  Pet.  i.  23.  It  is  an  agent  in  the  execution  of  the  divine  commands  : 
Ps.  cvii.  20;  cxlvii.  15,  18.  Isa.  Iv.  11.  It  is  a  messenger  gi\ing  and 
imparting  admonition  :  1  Kings  xii.  22.  1  Chron.  xvii.  3.  Jer.  xxvii. 
1;  xxxiv.  8;  xxxvi.  1.  To  the  word  of  God  is  ascribed  the  power 
of  searching  and  discerning  the  most  secret  thoughts  of  men  :  Heb. 
iv.  12.  We  must  not  suppose,  however,  that  an  enlightened  and 
spiritual  Hebrew  regarded  the  ivord  of  God  as  a  real  hypostasis  or 
substantial  being,  notwithsttinding  the  strong  language  thus  emplojed 
respecting  it.  —  Another  important  circumstance,  pertaining  to  the 
usus  loquendi  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  when  John  wrote  his  Gospel, 
deserves  to  be  brought  distinctly  into  view.  Not  far  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  era,  the  Targums  or  translations  into  Chaldee  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  were  made,  and  committed  to  writing;  of  the 
Pentateuch  by  Onkelos,  and  of  most  of  the  remaining  books  by  Jona- 
than ben  Uzziel.  In  these  works,  and  in  other  Targums,  a  special 
idiom  prevails  respecting  the  use  of  the  phrase,  "  word  of  the  Lord ; " 
and  it  jjresents  some  views  of  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  Jews  of  tliat 
period,  which  are  not  only  remarkable,  but  very  striking.  In  my  own 
apprehension,  they  have  an  importimt  bearing  upon  tlie  use  of  "  Logos  " 
in  our  text.  The  Chaldee  word  for  "Logos"  is  5*"i;pi?2,  a  noun  with 
formative  j^  derived  from  "^^S^i  dirit.  To  this  noun  the  Targumists 
subjoin  the  Gen.  Min"^  "^l  (abridged  "^"J.  '^'7),  which  then  is  exactly 
equivalent  to  6  Xoyoc  tov  ^eov.  This  expression  is  employed  in  the 
Targums,  in  cases  almost  without  number,  instead  of  the  simple  ^'"p"} 
or  f"^!!^  of  the  Hebrew  text.  In  particuLir,  wherever  the  Hebrew 
represents  the  Divine  Being  as  in  action,  or  as  revealing  himself  l)y 
his  works,  or  by  communications  to  individuals,  it  is  common  for  the 
Targumists  to  say  that  his  word  ojjerates,  or  makes  the  revelation.  .  .  . 
Sti'ikingly  is  tliis  idiom  illustrated  in  a  later  Targum  of  2  Chron.  xvi.  3, 

30 


350  THE  DOCTKIXK  OF   A  TRIUNE   GOD 

wliere  tlic  Hebrew  runs  tliiis  :  "  There  is  a  league  between  me  and 
thee;"  Targum,  "between  my  word  and  thy  word."  ITius  ^'^?2"''0 
came,  by  usage  among  the  Jews,  to  be  employed  not  only  to  desig- 
nate God  as  acting  or  m  iking  some  revelation  ot"  himself  or  of  his 
will,  l)ut  to  be  emi)loyed  as  a  kind  of  intensive  periphrastic  pronoun 
to  designate  God  himself.  The  transition  was  not  unnatural.  That 
which  is  often  employed  to  express  God  revealed  may  easily  come  at 
last  to  express  the  idea  of  God  simply  considered.  What  now  are  we 
to  say  as  to  the  real  nature  and  design  of  the  idiom  in  question  ?  Is 
it  personification,  or  does  it  amount  to  the  assertion  of  hifpostasis  ? 
If  we  were  to  judge  of  this  matter  onlj'  in  \ievf  of  the  leading  in- 
stances produced  above  [Exod.  xix.  17.  Job  xlii.  9.  Ps.  ii.  4.  Gen. 
XX vi.  3;  xxxix.  2.  Lev.  xxvi.  46.  Deut.  v.  5;  xx.  1.  Gen.  vi.  6; 
viii.  21],  we  might  be  ready  to  say  that  it  amounts  to  asserting  hypos- 
tasis. But,  when  we  comp;ire  the  idiom  in  its  whole  extent,  we  cannot 
view  the  matter  in  such  a  light.  Even  those  cases  which  present 
"  word  "  in  the  sense  of  the  recijjrocal  jironoun  cannot  be  regarded  as 
hyjjostiitically  designating  a  beuig  different  from  God.  In  very  late 
Targums  there  are,  indeed,  jxissages  which  plainly  imply  a  hyjiostiitic 
use  of  H'l?3"'?2,  i.e.  loord;  but,  in  those  that  were  extant  in  the  time 
of  John,  we  find  none  which  necessarily  convey  such  a  meaning.  — 
Aliridged  from  Moses  Stuart  on  John  L  1-18,  in  Bihliotheca  Sacra, 
vol.  vii.  pp.  18-22. 

It  has  been  maintained,  that  the  Jewish  Scriptures  convey  the  idea 
of  the  Logos  in  the  phrase,  "  the  word  of  God ;  "  implying  that  this 
phmse  is  the  designation  of  a  di\nne  person,  with  omnipotent  power, 
and  that  it  is  identinl  with  the  Logos  of  John.  If  we  rest  uj)on  the 
Scripture  alone  for  the  meaning  of  this  epithet,  we  should  undoubtedly 
come  to  the  conclusion,  with  some  of  the  most  Iciirned  critics,  that  it 
is  only  a  perijjhrasis  for  God,  or  used  as  expressive  of  his  active  power 
or  his  wisdom.  It  c;in  hardly  be  maintiiined,  that  this  term  could 
have  conveyed  to  the  Jewish  mind  the  conccj)tion  of  the  Word,  who 
was  to  l)ecome  incixrnate  among  men.  .  .  .  The  Jewish  Logos  and  the 
Logos  of  Philo  are  not  convertilile.  So  that  we  einnot  derive,  from 
the  fiicts  in  question,  a  convincing  argument  that  the  Divine  Saviour, 
in  his  distinct  j)ersonality  and  his  co-equality  with  God,  was  known 
before  the  Messiali  liimself  was  mmifested.  And,  after  Jesus  himself 
appeared,  a  true  knowledge  of  him  was  slowly  devolo])cd.  —  I)R.  Sktu 
SwEETSEK,  in  Biblioth.  Sacra  for  January,  1854  ;  vol.  xi.  pp.  103-4. 


NOT  REVEALED  OR  KNOWN  TO   THE  FIRST  DISCIPLES.         351 


SECT.  III.  —  TILE  DOCTRINE  OF  A  TRIITNE  GOD,  OR  OF  THE  DEITY 
OF  CHRIST,  NOT  REVEALED  OR  KNOWN  TO  THE  DISCIPLES  BEFORE 
THE   DAY   OF   PENTECOST. 

I  do  fear,  my  respected  friend,  that  some  of  your  opinions  and  reasonings  will  turn  out 
to  be  weapons  put  into  the  hands  of  Unitarians.  —  De.  Samuel  Miller. 

Christ  did  not  receive  testimony  from  the  evangelists,  that  he  was 
God.  —  Alphonso  Salmeron  :  Comm.  in  Evang.,  Prolog,  xxvi. 
torn.  i.  p.  394. 

Nor  understood  they  [our  Saviour's  o^^Tl  disciples]  the  mystery  of 
the  Sacred  Trinity  as  we  do,  and  many  other  recondite  secrets.  — 
John  Evelyn  :  TVie  True  Religion,  vol,  ii.  pp.  87-8. 

Be  they  who  they  would.  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  that  applied  to 
him  [our  Lord],  .  .  .  and  implored  his  assistance,  if  they  declared 
their  belief  in  him  as  in  a  person  sent  from  God,  he  desired  no  more, 
and  never  sent  them  away  without  relief.  But,  as  that  was  not  the 
time  for  him  to  declare  the  utmost  extent  of  his  power  and  authority, 
and  much  less  the  nature  of  his  kingdom  which  he  .  .  .  signified  to  be 
just  at  hand,  to  show  them  how  he  designed  to  redeem  mankind,  or 
to  manifest  his  Divinity  in  plain  and  explicit  words ;  so  ...  he  wrapt 

them  up  in  mysterious  and  allegorical  expressions Though  St. 

Peter  more  than  once  confessed  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God, 
yet  it  is  certain  from  the  evangelical  history,  that  neither  he  nor  any 
of  the  rest  of  the  apostles  did  then  know  our  Lord  to  be  what  he 
really  was.  This  was  the  main  article  which  they  not  only  could  not 
then  bear,  but  which  was  by  no  means  proper  to  be  then  clearly  re- 
vealed. .  .  .  They  had  such  rules  given  them,  for  the  direction  of  their 
conduct,  as  he  expected  should  be  ol)eyed  by  those  that  would  profess 
themselves  to  be  his  cUsciples.  Thus  they  were  told  what  they  were 
to  do,  and  in  whom  to  believe.  K  they  took  him  to  be  the  Sa^^our 
of  the  world,  that  was  sufficient.  But  then  they  were  directed,  Ijy  all 
that  he  did  and  said,  to  look  up  to  the  Father  as  the  sender,  and  him 
as  the  j)erson  sent ;  and  still  to  give  the  Father  the  glory  in  all  that 
they  should  see  the  Son  at  any  time  do.  If  they  thought  him  supe- 
rior to  Moses,  who  was  no  more  than  a  servant,  though  "  faithful  in 
all  his  house,"  whilst  he  executed  the  commands  of  his  great  Master, 
whereas  our  Lord  was  his  Son,  to  whom  he  communic;ited  his  whole 
will,  they  did  as  much  as  was  then  required  of  them  to  do.     Farther 


352  THE   DOOTiUNli   OF   A   TIUDNE   GOD 

manifestation  of  himself  would  not  have  suited  with  tliat  state  of 
humiliiition  in  which  he  appeared  before  his  jiassion.  This  conceal- 
ment of  himself  till  his  resurrection  is  what  the  ancient  fathers  meant 
by  the  word  "  economy,"  when  appUed  to  this  sulyect.  —  Dr.  Wm. 
WoTTOX :  Disc,  on  tlie  Omniscience  of  tlie  Son  of  God,  pp.  32,  36-8. 
Our  blessed  Lord  himself,  in  compliance  probably  with  the  weak- 
ness and  prejudices  of  his  hearers,  says  very  little,  in  his  discourses, 
of  his  own  Divinity.  Tliis  seemed  to  be  one  of  those  things  which 
"  they  were  not  as  yet  able  to  receive,"  He  constantly  calh  himself 
by  no  other  name  than  the  Son  of  man ;  nor  doth  it  appear  that  his 
disciples,  till  after  his  resurrection,  St.  Peter  only  excepted,  took  him 
for  a  divine  person.  .  .  .  Our  blessed  Lord  chose  rather  to  set  forth 
his  divine  character  by  his  actions  than  his  discourses,  and  left  the 
fuller  declarations  of  it  to  be  made  by  his  apostles  after  his  ascension. 
—  Dr.  Thomas  Mangey:  Plain  JVotioiis  of  our  Lord's  Divinity, 
page  10. 

But  is  it  at  all  probable  that  Peter  would  have  had  the  effrontery  to 
rebuke  his  Master,  if  he  rcp;:irded  him  as  Almighty  God?  In  the  present 
comiection,  the  following  remarks  by  Bishop  Maltby  (lilust.  of  the  Truth 
of  the  Chris.  Heligion,  p.  124),  deserve  a  place:  "  In  the  sixteenth  chapter  of 
the  same  evangelist  [JIatthew],  it  appears  to  be  intimated,  that  all  the 
disciples  had  not  fully  ascertained,  in  their  own  minds,  what  was  the  real 
character  of  their  Master;  since  only  one,  in  reply  to  his  question  upon  that 
point,  described  him  by  his  true  designation.  But,  immediately  afterwards, 
that  same  apostle  showed  his  utter  ignorance  of  the  nature  of  that  designa- 
tion, and  the  entire  coincidence  of  his  notions  with  those  of  his  countrymen, 
when,  in  direct  opposition  to  a  plain  declaration  of  Jesus  concerning  his 
impending  sulTerings  and  death,  he  replied  in  a  tone  of  impatience  and 
incredulity,  '  Be  it  far  from  thee,  Lord!  tliis  shall  not  be  unto  thee.'  " 

**  My  Lord !  and  my  God !  "  I  do  not  understmd  this  as  an  address 
to  Jesus ;  but  thus,  "  Yes :  he  it  is  indeed !  lie,  my  Lord,  and  my 
God!  "  Yet,  in  giving  this  interprefcition,  I  do  not  aiKrm  that  Thomas 
pissed  all  at  once  from  the  extreme  of  d()ul)t  to  the  highest  degree  of 
faith,  and  acknowledged  Ciirist  to  be  the  true  God.  Tliis  appears  to 
me  too  much  for  the  theji  existing  knowledge  of  the  disciples ;  and 
we  h ive  no  mtimition  that  they  recognized  the  divine  nature  of  Christ, 
before  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  am  therefore  inclined  to 
understand  this  expression,  which  iiroke  out  from  Thomas  in  the  height 
of  his  astonishment,  in  a  figurative  sense,  denoting  only,  "  Wliom  I 
shall  ever  reverence  in  the  higliest  degree."  If  he  only  recollected 
wlul  he  had  heard  from  the  mouth  of  Jesus  ten  Aiys  before  (chap.  xiv. 


NOT   REVEALED   OR    irfjO.VN   TO   THE   FIllST   DISCIPIiES.         353 

9,  10),  that  recollection  might  have  given  occasion  to  an  exjiression 
whicli  probably  Thomas  himself  could  not  have  perfectly  explained ; 
as  is  often  the  c;ise  with  such  words  as  esaipe  us  when  we  are  under 
the  most  overpowering  surprise.  But  yet  the  expression  might  be 
equivalent  to  saying,  "  He !  my  Lord !  with  whom  God  is  most  inti- 
mately united,  and  is  in  him !  —  in  whom  I  behold  God  as  it  were 
present  before  me ! "  Or  a  person  raised  from  the  dead  might  be 
regarded  as  a  divinity ;  for  the  word  "  God  "  is  not  always  used  in  the 
strict  doctrinal  sense.  —  J.  D.  MiCHAELls :  Anmerk.  on  John  xx.  28  ; 
a-3  quoted  by  J,  P.  Smith  in  Script.  Test.,  vol.  ii.  pp.  68-9. 

Many  other  remarks  of  a  similar  character  will  (d.  v.-)  be  introduced  into 
the  volume  consisting  of  interpretations  of  texts  in  the  Gospels. 

Now,  we  shall  willingly  admit,  that  the  apostles  themselves  were 
believers  under  this  idea  mostly  [namely,  that  the  title  "  Son  of  God  " 
denotes  the  same  thing  as  Messiah  or  Christ],  during  oiu:  Saviour's 
residence  upon  earth ;  as  it  is  certain  they  had  not  the  whole  mystery 
of  the  divine  will,  the  gi-and  scheme  of  man's  redemption,  clearly  and 
fully  made  known  to  them  before  our  Lord's  ascension  into  heaven. 
...  It  would  be  ridiculous  to  suppose  that  the  apostles  could  belie\"e 
their  Master  to  be  the  Son  of  God  in  the  highest  [the  Trinitarian] 
sense,  .  .  .  when  "  they  all  forsook  liim  and  fied."  —  Wm.  IL\WKINS : 
Discourses  on  Scripture  Mysteries,  jjp.  63-4. 

Yet  this  writer  says  that  Jesus  frequently  asserted  his  truly  divine  nature 
to  his  disciples,  who  must  have  understood  him. 

We  can  scarcely  think  it  strange  that  Jesus  should  have  spoken 
less  clearly  and  explicitly  than  his  apostles  after  him,  respecting  the 
relation  which  he  bore  to  God  the  Father,  and  that  he  never  declared 
himself  the  Creator  of  the  world  (an  argument  apparently  in  the 
Socinians'  favor),  when  we  consider  that  a  different  method  would 
have  been  unworthy  of  the  divine  wisdom,  which  required  that  the 
Jews  should  be  drawn  off,  by  slow  degrees,  from  their  too  contracted 
notions  respecting  the  Unity  of  God,  and  gradually  imbibe  just  senti- 
ments in  relation  to  the  Messiah.  —  J.  F.  Flatt  :  Dissertation  07i 
the  Deity  of  Christ ;  in  Biblical  Repertory  for  1829,  or  new  series, 
vol.  i.  pp.  174-5. 

As  it  was  our  blessed  Lord's  Divinity,  wliich,  we  have  seen,  he 
studiously  concealed,  but  wisjied  all  men  to  come  to  the  knowledge 
•  of,  &c.  —  Oxford  or  Anglican  Doctors  :   Tracts  for  the  Times, 
No.  80,  in  vol.  iv.  p.  38. 

30* 


354  THE  DOCTRINE  OF   A   TRIUNE  GOD 

It  would  be  unreasonable  to  expect  that  this  doctrine  [the  Trinity 
in  Unity]  should  have  been  fully  revealed  till  the  day  of  Pentecost 
...  In  tlie  histories,  therefore,  written  by  those  evangelists  who  con- 
fine themselves  exclusively  to  a  recital  of  some  leading  discoui-ses  of 
our  Lord,  and  to  an  account  of  some  of  his  princiixil  miracles,  I  should 
expect  to  find  fewer  trates  of  these  higher  doctrines.  In  Mr.  Bel- 
sham's  own  words,  I  would  ask,  "  When  our  Lord  was  so  very  Ciiutious 
in  discovering  himself  to  be  the  Messiah,  would  he,  at  the  same  time, 
make  no  hesitation  in  declaring  himself  to  be  '  the  very  eternal  God '  ?  " 
"AVhat  would  have  been  the  effect  upon  the  apostles,"  says  he  again, 
"  the  instant  the  amazing  truth  was  communi&ited  to  them  ?  Their 
faculties  would  be  absorljed  in  terror  and  astonishment ;  no  more  free 
conversation,  no  more  asking  of  questions,  no  more  attempts  to  impose 
U]3on  him,  or  to  rebuke  him;  the  greatest  awe  and  distixnce  would 
instixntaneously  take  place,  and  all  the  endearing  and  familiar  relations 
of  master,  instructor,  companion,  and  friend,  would  at  once  have  been 
broken  off."  The  little  impression  which  our  Saviour's  miracles  made 
uj)on  the  ai)ostles,  and  tlie  wavering  and  unsettled  conviction  of  their 
minds  as  to  his  being  the  Messiah  after  all  (LulvC  xxiv.  11,  25),  is 
evident  from  many  passages.  Such  a  frame  of  mind  as  this  would  be 
incixpable  of  receiving  and  comprehending  doctrines  more  abstruse, 
when  even  the  testimony  of  their  senses  produced  so  little  effect  upon 
them.  I  should  therefore  be  prepared  to  expect  that  the  grand  dis- 
closure of  Christ's  dirine  nature  would  not  be  formally  made  to  them 
till  that  i)criod  should  arrive  when  they  should  be  "  able  to  bear  all 
things;"  which  period,  from  John  xvi.  12,  13,  we  learn  to  be  the 
epoch  of  the  descent  of  tlie  Holy  Ghost.  —  Dr.  Longley,  Bishop  of 
llipon  :  The  Brothers'  Controversy,  jip.  54-7, 

It  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  professedly  withheld  the 
full  manifestation  of  his  doctrines  till  the  period  subsequent  to  his 
death  and  resurrection.  ...  If  we  duly  consider  these  features  of  the 
early  Christian  economy,  we  shall  not  expect  to  find  a  full  declaration 
of  the  doctrine  respecting  our  I^ord's  person  [meaning,  of  course,  as 
God-man]  in  the  narratives  of  the  evangelists,  or  in  his  own  discourses ; 
but  we  shall  rather  look  for  intimations,  for  princii)les  implied  in  facts 
and  assertions,  and  for  conclusions  from  such  facts  and  assertions  de- 
duced l)y  minute  attention  and  close  examination  on  our  own  part. 

To  demand  that  tiiis  doctrine  [^that  of  the  pre-existence  of 

Christ],  su|)posing  it  to  be  true,  should  have  l)een  t;uiglit  by  our  Lord 
himself,  in  tlie  most  clear  and  decisive  manner,  is  not  reasonal)le;  for 


NOT   IlEVEALED  OR   KNOWN   TO   THR  FIRST   DISCIPLES.         dOO 

it  was  of  the  very  genius  and  cliaracter  of  liis  ministry,  that  by  it  the 
peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Christian  dispensation  should  not  he  fully 
unfolded.  .  .  .  Jesus  himself  appears  to  have  plainly  insisted,  in  his 
own  teachings,  upon  no  doctrines  but  those  which  were  generally 
admitted  by  his  countrymen  as  resting  on  the  authority  of  Moses  and 
the  prophets.  —  t)R.  J.  P.  Smitu  :  Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Messiah, 
vol.  i.  pp.  429-30,  509. 

The  relation  between  the  disciples  and  their  divine  Master  .  .  . 
was  like  that  between  children  and  their  parents,  in  this  also,  that,  as 
they  had  ever  found  a  ready  present  help  in  him  for  all  their  wants, 
he  stood  in  the  place  of  God  to  them,  as  a  father  stands  to  his  child. 
It  is  true  he  also  was  God.  This,  however,  they  knew  not :  they  did 
not  regard  him  as  God,  but  much  more  as  a  man,  like,  though  far 
superior  in  power  and  wisdom,  to  themselves.  —  Julius  Charles 
Hare  :  Mission  of  the  Comforter,  vol.  i.  pp.  9,  10. 


See  that  portion  of  the  present  work  which  treats  of  the  simplicity  ol 
our  Lord's  teachings,  pp.  230-3. 

Notwithstanding  all  the  constraint  and  cautiousness  observable  in  some 
of  the  extracts  just  made,  the  writers  cannot  help  acknowledging,  that  the 
Saviour  did  not  teach  —  that  the  apostles,  during  his  ministry,  did  not 
recognize  —  that  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  do  not  assert  —  the  dogma  of  a 
Triinty  in  Unity,  or  of  any  other  nature  in  Jesus  Christ  than  that  which 
was  human.  But,  if  these  doctrines  are  of  essential  importance  in  the 
scheme  of  salvation,  or  if  they  constitute  a  main  element  in  Christianity,  as 
they  are  represented  in  the  discourses  and  writings  of  many  theologians, 
does  it  not  seem  strange  and  incredible,  that,  while  its  Founder  taught,  and 
in  his  life  exhibited,  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Divine  Unity,  the  Father- 
hood of  God,  and  the  fraternity  of  man,  he  should  never  have  instructed  his 
followers,  either  by  announcement,  or  through  his  teachings  and  his  prayers 
by  clear  implication,  that  there  were  three  persons  in  the  one  God ;  and  that 
lie  himself,  though  the  meek  and  lowly  one,  though  the  guest  of  publicans 
and  the  washer  of  his  disciples'  feet,  though  the  disclaimer  of  absolute 
goodness,  of  perfect  knowledge,  and  of  independent  power,  and  though  act- 
ing as  the  Sent  and  Anointed  of  the  Father,  was  at  the  same  time  the  equal 
of  Jehovah  and  the  same  Being,  the  second  person  of  an  infinite  and  ever 
glorious  Trinity  ?  And  does  it  not  seem  equally  amazing  and  incredible, 
that,  if  he  did  express  or  clearlj-  imph^  these  mysteries,  and  tlie  apostles, 
through  their  Jewish  prejudices  and  the  feebleness  of  their  capacities,  could 
not  understand  or  appreciate  the  knowledge  which  their  Lord  imjiarted, 
none  of  the  evangelists  sliould  in  any  instance  allude  to  the  dulness  of  tha 
Twelve  in  being  unable  to  discern  his  essential  Divinity  as  well  as  his  Mes 
Eiahship? 


856  THE  DOCTRINE  OF   A   TRIUNE  GOU 


»ECT.  IV.  —  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  A  TKIUNE   GOD,  OR  OF   THE   DEITY   Of 
CHRIST,  NOT  DI\TJLGED   IN   THE  ACTS   OF   THE  APOSTLES. 

You  will  reveal  it. 

Not  I.  ShAE8P£ARE. 

It  is  certain  that  those  necessary  doctrines  of  faith  [namely,  those 
of  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  Deity  of  Christ,  &c.]  which  Avere  but  lightly 
touched  upon  in  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts,  are  distinctly  and  fully 

explained  in  these  Epistles Most  of  the  choicest  and  sublimesl 

truths  of  Christianity  are  to  be  met  with  in  the  Epistles  of  the  apostles, 
they  being  such  doctrines  as  were  not  clearly  discovered  and  oj)ened 
in  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts.  —  Dr.  John  Edavards  :  Socinianism 
Unnuisked,  pp.  41,  79. 

These  passages  are  taken  from  one  of  the  books  penned  by  this  learned 
but  bitter  controversialist  against  Locke's  "  Reasonableness  of  Christianity," 
and  are  chiefly  aimed  at  tlie  sentiment  expressed  by  the  great  philosopher, 
that  it  is  not  in  tlie  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  which  were  written  for 
the  resolving  of  doubts  and  the  reforming  of  mistakes,  but  in  the  Gos|>els 
dnd  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that  men  are  to  learu  what  are  the  funda- 
mental articles  of  faith. 

St.  Luke, ...  in  his  second  treatise,  in  which  he  lets  us  know  what 
the  apostles  did  after  they  had  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  tells  us  iiow 
our  Lord  fulftllcd  iiis  promise  of  liis  future  presence;  how  the  apostles, 
after  their  receiving  of  the  Holy  Gliost,  bajjtized  converts,  bestowed 
the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  upon  those  that  were  worthy  to  receive  them, 
founded  churches,  and  positively  declared  that  there  was  no  other 
name  given  under  heaven  by  which  men  could  be  saved,  but  only  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  what  we  c;tn  chiefly  gather  from  these 
two  l)ooks  of  this  evangelist.  —  Dr.  William  Wotion  :  Sermon  on 
the  Omniscience  of  the  Son  of  God,  p.  50. 

In  that  poj'tion  of  his  Sermon  which  precedes  the  present  extract,  Dr. 
WoTTON  says  that  in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  "  we  see  very  little  which 
directly  leads  us  to  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  really  God."  After  stat- 
ing that  this  evangelist  all  along  pursues  ideas  suitable  to  the  state  of 
humiliation  in  which  CluMst  appeared,  he  goes  on  to  state  that  St.  Mark  had 
constantly  in  view,  and  abridges,  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  ;  and  that  St. 
Luke's  narrative,  though  comi)rehending  much  not  in  the  two  foregoing 
evangelists,  all  tends  to  the  same  purpose,  namely,  that  our  Saviour  waa 


NOT   DIVULGED   IN   THE   ACTS   OF  TIIE  Al'OSTLES.  357 

gent  from  above  to  preach  the  gospel,  with  full  power  to  save  those  who 
should  believe  in  him.  After  quoting  Christ's  declaration  to  his  disciples, 
that  "  all  power  was  given  to  him,"  &c.,  and  his  promise,  that  "  he  would 
be  with  them  to  the  end  of  the  world,"  the  learned  writer  says  that  St.  Luke 
goes  farther,  and,  in  his  second  treatise,  narrates  what  the  apostles  did  after 
they  had  received  the  Holy  Spirit,  according  to  the  extract  we  have  made 
above.  In  the  contents  of  his  Sermon,  when  referring  to  these  passages,  the 
writer  thus  expresses  the  nature  of  his  sentiments:  "Little  of  the  Divinity 
of  the  Son  of  God  in  St.  Matthew,  pp.  49,  50;  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  follow 
the  same  method,  p.  50."  After  perusing  Wotton's  abstract  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  it  would  not,  we  think,  be  an  unfair  inference  for  the  reader 
to  draw,  that  Luke  must  have  represented  the  first  preachers  of  the  gospel 
as  saying  very  "little"  indeed  "of  the  Divinity,"  or,  as  we  would  express 
it,  of  the  Deity,  "  of  the  Son  of  God." 

We  know  how  frequently  this  passage  [Matt,  xxviii.  19]  is  quoted 
as  a  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  by  many,  indeed,  who  do  not 
believe  this  doctrine,  and  wish  perhaps  to  undermine  it.  I  must  con- 
fess that  I  cannot  see  it  in  this  point  of  view.  The  eternal  Di\"inity 
of  the  Son  —  which  is  so  clearly  taught  in  other  passages,  particularly 
John  i.  1-14  and  Rom.  ix.  5  —  is  here  not  once  mentioned ;  and  it  is 
impossible  to  understand  from  this  passage,  whether  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  a  person.  The  meaning  of  Jesus  may  have  been  this :  Those  who 
were  baptized  should,  ujjon  their  baptism,  confess  that  they  believed 
in  the  Father  and  in  the  Son,  and  in  all  the  doctrines  inculcated  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  —  both  those  which  occur  in  the  Old  Testament,  as 
well  as  those  which  the  apostles  were  to  deliver  under  the  influence 
of  divine  inspiration,  and  which  as  yet  they  had  not  learned ;  that  they 
were  to  receive  and  believe  these  doctrines,  and,  in  one  word,  embrace 
the  whole  divine  revelation.  In  fact,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  words 
in  the  form  of  baj)tism  can  signify  more,  because  it  was  impossible,  for 
the  majority  of  those  who  believed,  to  think  more  upon  the  subject 
at  the  time ;  for  they  were  not  regularly  instructed  in  the  mystery  of 
the  Trinity  before  baptism,  and  only  received  complete  instruction 
in  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  after  baptism.  Read  only  the  second 
cliapter  of  the  Acts,  where  three  thousand  were  baptized  in  one  day. 
What  did  these  persons  know  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  of  which 
Peter,  in  his  discourse,  did  not  say  one  word  ?  What  did  they  know 
of  the  personahty  of  the  Holy  Gliost  ?  They  were  not  doctrines  of 
the  Jewish  church,  which,  in  the  first  instance,  might  be  assumed ; 
and  yet  they  are  baptized  (presuming  the  apostles  to  have  fulfilled 
these  commands  of  Jesus)  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     What  could  tliey  otherwise  think  but  Lbit 


358  TILE  DOCTRINE  OF  A   TRIUXE  GOD 

they  acknowledged,  by  baj)tism,  Jesus  to  be  the  Son  of  God  and  the 
Christ ;  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (which,  as  Peter  ol)served,  they 
both  saw  and  heard)  to  be  no  dehision,  but  to  descend  from  lieaven ; 
and  the  doctrines  which  the  apostles  were  to  teach,  under  th'e  intiu- 
ence  of  divine  inspiration,  to  be  those  which  they  did,  and  which  they 
ought  to,  believe  ?  This  is  the  more  striking,  where,  in  Acts  xvi.  33, 
it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  jiiiler  should  have  known  any  thirig 
of  the  eternal  Divinity  of  Clu'ist,  and  of  the  jjersonality  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  or  that  Paul,  in  his  very  short  conversation  (ver.  32),  shouUl 
hiive  instructed  him  in  it,  as  we  find  no  traces  of  it  in  his  first  dis- 
courses, conkiined  in  the  thirteenth  and  seventeenth  chapters.  — 
J.  D.  MicuAELis :  The  Burial  and  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ, 
pp.  325-7. 

It  may  be  mentionetl,  in  passing,  tliat  the  texts  referred  to  by  MicnAiius, 
as  "clearly  teaching"  the  eternal  Divinity  of  the  Son  of  God  (John  i.  1-14, 
Rom.  ix.  5,  and  others),  are  acknowledged  by  Trinitarians,  of  as  high  a 
standing,  to  be  either  obscure  or  susceptible  of  a  very  dilferent  interpreta- 
tion. These  acknowledgments  it  is  intended  to  place  under  the  texts  to 
which  they  refer,  in  future  volumes  of  this  work. 

We  read,  in  the  Acts  [ii.  4 1 ;  iv.  4],  of  three  or  five  thousand  souls 
being  converted  in  one  day,  and  admitted  into  the  church  through 
baptism.     Docs  this  fact  possibly  allow  us  to  imagine  that  they  were 

all  instructed  in  the  detailed  m}steries  of  religion ? No  more 

than  a  general  idea  of  Christianity  was  given ;  whereas  the  important 
doctrines,  and,  in  some  sense,  I  might  say  the  most  important  doc- 
trines, ...  of  the  Trinity,  the  incarruition,  and,  above  all,  that  dogma 
which  now-a-days  particularly  is  considered  the  most  vital  of  all,  tiie 
atonement  on  the  cross,  were  not  even  slightly  hinted  at,  much  less 
communicated,  to  the  new  Christian  before  he  was  baptized.  —  CAR- 
DINAL Wiseman  :  Lectures  on  the  Principal  Doctrines  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  vol.  i.  pp.  1()7,  112. 

The  claims  of  Jesus,  as  advanced  by  himself,  and  as  first  urged  by 
the  apostles  and  the  three  earlier  evangelists,  were  addressed  to  Jews, 
who  admitted  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testiiment,  and  looked  for  such 
a  Messiah  as  it  descri!)cd.  Tlieir  ignorance,  indeed,  and  their  jireju- 
dices  were  very  great.  It  apjiears  from  the  Gospels,  that  both  tlie 
higher  orders  of  the  Jews  and  the  mass  of  the  nation  had  very  obscure, 
and  probably  inconsistent,  notions  concerning  the  Messuih,  who  was 
the  ol)ject  of  their  eager,  but  generally  carnal  and  wc-ldly,  expectJition. 
Yet  this  expectation  rested  upon  the  Holy  Scriptures;  and  it  was 


NOT  DIVULGED  IN   TUE  ACTS  OF   TUK  APOSTLES.  359 

proper  to  remit  them  to  those  Scriptm-es  for  the  rectifying  of  their 
errors.  It  is  plain  that  the  immediate  object,  in  the  writings  of 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  was  to  produce  a  conviction  that  Jesus 
of  NaEireth  was  the  Messiah  announced  and  described  in  the  prophetic 
writings ;  and  they  evidently  left  the  scrutinizing  and  appliaition  of 
det;iils  to  the  duty  and  diligence  of  their  readers.  A  similar  course 
was  followed  by  the  apostles  and  their  fellow-laborers  in  preaching 
Christianity,  as  they  regularly  communicated  to  the  Jews,  in  the  first 
instance,  the  word  of  life.  The  converts  were  directed  to  "  search  the 
Scriptures  daily ; "  they  were  assured  that  those  Scriptures  testified 
of  Christ ;  and  it  would  follow,  of  course,  that  all  which  they  could 
discover  in  the  inspired  writings,  concerning  the  characters,  office,  and 
dignity  of  the  Messiah,  would  be  transferred  to  the  person  of  J  esus  of 
Nazareth.  But  this  would  not  be  a  rapid  process ;  and  in  proportion 
as  they  made  progress  in  this  study  would  their  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  in  this  respect  and  in  ail  its  other  branches  and  relations, 
become  extensive  and  accurate.  ...  I  submit  to  such  of  my  readers 
as  may  be  competent  and  inclined  to  the  minute  examination  of  the 
question,  whether  this  plan  of  a  gradual  development,  connected  with 
the  study  and  appliaition  of  the  Old  Testimeut,  was  not,  though 
imperfectly  understood  and  ill  expressed,  the  object  really  intended 
by  those  Christian  fathers  who  maintained  that  the  apostles,  in  their 
earlier  ministry,  refrained  from  divulging  the  pre-existence  and  Din- 
nity  of  Christ,  and  that  John  was  the  fii'st  who  advanced  this  doctrine. 
Though  some  of  the  citations  made  by  Dr.  Priestley  are  by  him  mis- 
construed, and  others  by  being  detached  from  their  connection  appear 
stronger  than  they  really  are,  it  is  undeniable  that  this  opinion  was 
held  by  Origen,  Athanasius,  Ciirysostom,  and  others.  —  Dr.  J.  P. 
Smith:  Script.  Test,  to  the  Messiah,  vol.  ii.  pp.  152-3,  155-6. 

It  would  appear,  then,  that,  instead  of  delivering  to  the  Jews  the  dogn'a 
of  Christ's  Supreme  Divinity,  the  apostles,  in  their  oral  discourses,  endea- 
vored to  persuade  tlieir  countrymen,  by  an  appeal  to  their  Scriptures,  that 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  promised  Messiah ;  leaving  them  to  discover,  by 
their  own  study  of  these  writings,  that  he  constituted  one  of  the  persons  of 
seif-cGiiscious  agents  in  a  Triune  Godhead;  the  comparatively  obscure  pro- 
phecies relating  to  his  character  and  dignity  being  supposed,  in  this  case,  to 
be  plainer  and  more  intelligible  than  the  teachings  of  the  Foniider  of  Chris- 
tianity himself,  and  rendering  it  unnecessary  for  the  apostles  to  say  any 
thing  at  all  respecting  doctrines  which  have  been  conceived  by  mr.ny  to 
lie  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  gospel,  and  to  form,  indeed,  its  peculiar 
characteristics ! 


360  THE  DOCTRINE  OK   A   TRIUNE  GOD 

In  tlie  second  section  of  the  present  chapter,  we  showed  it  to  have  been 
the  conviction  of  niiiny  Trinitarians,  tliat  the  mysterious  doctrines  just 
referred  to  are  not  revealed  in  tiie  Old  Testament;  and  that,  though  some 
of  the  learned  Jews  may  have  filled  tlieir  imaginations  with  vagaries  as  to 
divine  powers  and  hypostutized  attributes,  the  great  body  of  the  people  had 
not  the  slightest  expectation  that  their  Messiah  would  be  in  nature  any 
thing  more  than  a  human  being.  If  this  opinion  be  well  founded,  —  and, 
so  far  as  tlie  Jews  of  I'alestine  are  concerned,  it  seems  to  be  established  be- 
yond doubt  by  the  New-Testament  records,  —  we  would  naturally  suppose, 
that,  if  the  apostles  had  any  knowledge  of  Trinitarian  dogmas,  they  would 
have  prefeiTed  inculcating  these  in  clear  and  express  terms,  instead  of 
sending  their  hearers  to  passages  of  tlie  Old  Testament,  where,  enveloped  in 
clouds  and  figures,  they  can  be  discovered  only  by  the  lights  thrown  over 
them  of  a  ])reviously  formed  faith ;  and,  even  with  that  faith,  sometimes  not 
at  all.  Indeed,  had  the  apostles  acted  in  the  way  attributed  to  them,  they 
would  have  unquestionably  failed  in  their  purposes,  and  produced  a  con- 
trary eft'ect.  If,  for  instance,  with  the  view  of  leading  the  minds  of  his 
hearers  to  a  recognition  not  only  of  the  divine  authority,  but  of  the  eternally 
divine  nature,  of  Christ,  Peter  had  aildueed,  as  in  Acts  iii.  22  he  is  rejiorted 
to  have  adduced,  tiie  prediction  uttered  by  Moses,  "  A  Prophet  shall  tha 
Lord  your  God  raise  vj)  unto  you,  of  your  brethren,  like  unto  jie:  him 
shall  ye  hear  in  all  things,"  —  he  could  not  have  taken  a  more  decisive 
mode  of  confirming  the  Unitarian  views  which  he  had  himself  set  forth  in 
his  first  sermon  to  the  Jews,  chap.  ii.  22,  "  Ye  men  of  Israel,  hear  these 
words:  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  A  man  aituovkd  of  God  among  you  by  mira- 
cles and  wonders  and  signs,  which  God  did  by  him  in  the  midst  of  you,  as 
ye  yourselves  also  know."  Speaking  of  the  prophecy  which  Peter  quotes 
from  Deut.  xviii.  15-19,  Colkhidgk,  in  his  "Literary  Kemains  "  (Works, 
vol.  V.  p.  282),  says,  "  If  I  could  be  persuaded  that  this  passage  primarily 
referred  to  Christ;  and  that  Christ,  not  Joshua  and  his  successors,  was  the 
prophet  here  promised,  —  I  must  either  become  a  Unitarian  psilanthropist, 
and  join  Priestley  and  Belsham,  or  abandon  to  the  Jews  their  own  Messiah 
as  yet  to  come,  and  cling  to  the  religion  of  John  and  Paul,  without  further 
reference  to  Moses  than  to  Lycurgus,  Solon,  and  Nunia;  all  of  whom,  in 
their  different  spheres,  no  less  prepared  the  way  for  the  coming  of  the  Lord, 
'  the  desire  of  the  nations.'  " 

It  has  been  seen  that  some  of  the  church  fathers  were  forced  to  acknow- 
ledge the  Unitarianism  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  Theophilus  Lindsey  (Sequel, 
p.  203)  quotes  Ciiuysostom  as  saying,  in  one  of  his  Homilies,  that  "  Paul 
nt  Athens  flatly  calls  Christ  a  mnn,  an<l  nothing  more;  "  and  that,  in  relation 
to  their  conduct  towards  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  "  the  apostles  use  a  con- 
descending method  and  management,  the  economy  of  compliance; "  that  is, 
though  they  believed  in  the  essential  Deity  of  Christ,  the  apostles,  for  pni- 
dential  reasons,  concealed  this  important  truth  from  those  to  wiiom  they 
announced  the  gospel.  Kkasmu.s,  Calmet,  and  other  Koman  Catholics, 
make  concessions  of  a  similar  kind. 


NOT  DIVULGED  IN  THE   ACTS   OF  TOE  APOSTLES.  '6Q1 

But  such  acknowledjTments  are  not  confined  either  to  the  ancient  fathers 
or  to  members  of  the  Pap;il  Church.  In  a  Sermon  on  the  "  Tendencies  of 
Intellectual  Preaching,"  delivered  before  the  General  Convention  of  Con- 
gregational Ministers  of  Massachusetts,  May  26,  1853,  Dr.  John  Todd,  of 
Pittsfield,  says  (p.  31)  that  St.  Paul,  before  the  Areopagus,  "made  a  great 
speech,  a  great  intellectual  effort,"  "  but  said  not  one  word  about  the  cross 
of  Christ;  "  and  that  "  the  results  "  of  that  "  master's  speech  "  were  —  "  oh, 
how  poor!  "  That  is,  unless  we  misunderstand  the  drift  of  the  remark, — 
by  declaring  to  the  Athenians  the  oneness  and  paternity  of  the  Divine  Being, 
the  sole  Originator  and  Governor  of  the  universe;  his  goodness  and  mercy 
in  sending  his  Son  .Jesus  Christ  into  the  world  to  awaken  all  men  to  repent- 
ance and  spiritual  worship;  and  his  equity  in  constituting  one  who  shared 
iu  all  the  sinless  affections  of  humanitj-  the  Judge  of  the  human  race,  certi- 
fying this  appointment  by  raising  his  Messenger  and  Representative  from 
the  dead,  —  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  in  propounding  these  sublime 
and  beneficent  principles  to  the  idolatrous  and  the  sceptical  Athenians, 
made  a  sad  mistake,  because,  instead,  he  did  not  discourse  on  innate  depra- 
vity, a  Trinitj'  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  incarnation  of  the  second  of 
these  persons,  and  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  atonement. 

The  objection  you  have  made  ag-ainst  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divine 
nature,  from  its  not  being  more  dwelt  upon  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, has  often  presented  itself  to  me ;  and  various  are  the  answers 
which  have  occurred  to  me.  Among  others,  one  which  I  met  with  a 
few  days  since  in  one  of  Lord  Bolingbroke's  Essays  seemed  reasonable. 
He  thinks  it  natural  (and  I  like  to  quote  his  opinion,  as  he  is  a  sort 
of  neutral),  that  St.  Paul,  when  addressing  the  Gentiles,  should  have 
reserved  the  doctrine  of  tlie  Trinity  for  their  future  instruction,  lest  he 
should  seem,  in  any  degree,  to  covmtenance  their  favorite  polStheism. 
When  they  were  estil)lislied  in  their  belief  of  Christ's  divine  legation, 
he  would  then  proceed  to  unfold  this  mystery  to  them.  —  Bisnop 
LoNGLEY  :  The  Brothers'  Controversy,  pp.  104-5. 


In  the  three  preceding  sections,  Trinitarians  acknowledge  that  God  did 
not  reveal  himself  to  the  Hebrews  as  a  Triune  Being;  that,  with  all  the 
absurd  notions  of  divine  emanations  which  they  derived  from  their  inter- 
course with  the  Orientals,  they  knew  nothing  of  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the 
Godhead;  that,  as  regards  the  nature  of  the  Deity,  the  instructions  which 
our  Lord  imparted  were  not  different  from  those  of  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
that  he  did  not  reveal  the  alleged  Divinity  of  his  person  to  his  disciples;  that 
the  great  object  of  the  evangelists  was  to  establish  the  Messiahship  of  their 
Master;  and  that  the  apostles,  at  least  in  their  earlier  preaching,  divulged 
not  the  mysterious  doctrines  of  Trinitarianism.  Thus  far,  according  to  the 
showing  of  the  orthodox  themselves,  is  the  dogma  of  the  Trinity  defective 
in  Scriptural  evidence 

31 


362  DOCTRINES  BESIDES  THOSE  TACGUT   BY   CHKIST 


SECT.  V.  —  NO  DOCTRINES  ADDITIONAL  TO  THOSE  PREVIOUSLY  TAl'Gin 
BY  CHRIST,  OR  COMMUNICATED  ON  THE  DAY  OF  PENTECOST  BY 
THE   HOLY   SPIRIT,   INCULCATED   IN   THE  EPISTLES. 

Thou,  0  God,  the  Father!  art  inTisiblo:  but  thy  Ron,  who  came  to  us  in  human 
form,  was  gazed  on  by  human  eyes,  and  he  hath  declared  and  exhibited  thy  character 
to  the  world;  he  being  the  brightness  of  thy  glory  and  the  express  image  of  thy 
person. — Dr.  Thomas  Chalmkbs. 

The  gospel  of  our  Saviour  is  defiiced  and  obscured  by  affected 
mysteries,  and  paradoxes,  and  senseless  pro])ositions ;  and  Christ  him- 
self, who  was  the  brightness  of  his  Father's  glory  and  the  express 
image  of  his  person,  who  in  the  most  plain  and  perspicuous  manner 
declared  the  will  of  God  to  us,  is  represented  with  a  thicker  veil  upon 
his  foce  than  Moses,  and  the  glory  of  the  second  covenant  is  much 
more  obscured  with  a  mist  of  words  than  the  first  was  with  tyi)es  and 
figures.  This  will  appear  to  any  man  who  shall  observe  what  strange 
interj)retations  are  commonly  made  of  those  texts  of  Scripture,  es])e- 
ciiiUy  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  wherein  Christ  is  mentioned ;  what  absurd 
propositions  are  built  on  them,  what  pernicious  consequences  drawn 
from  them,  to  defeat  the  great  ends  of  Christ's  a])])earing  in  the  flesh. 
—  Dr.  William  Sherlock  :  Knowledge  of  Christ,  ])p.  1,  2. 

As  for  the  Epistles,  they  do  chiefly  contiiin  confirmations  and 
illustrations  of  things  which  are  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  and  repeated 
)ersuasions  to  the  practice  of  that  holiness  which  is  recommended  by 
them.  —  Dr.  Thom.vs  Bennet  :  ConfiUution  of  Popery,  p.  49. 

We  must  not  regard  the  Epistles  as  communiciitions  of  religious 
doctrines  not  disclosed  before;  as  displaying  the  perfection  of  a  system 
of  which  merely  tlie  rude  elements  had  been  indicated  in  the  writings 
of  the  four  evangelists.  This  address  of  our  Lord  to  his  apostles 
[John  xvi.  12,  115]  is  commonly  alleged  in  support  of  the  assertion, 
tljat  additional  doctrines  were  to  be  propounded  in  the  Epistles.  That 
such  cannot  be  the  meaning  of  the  jxvssage,  the  preceding  inquiry  as 
to  the  several  articles  of  Christian  belief  has  proved.  To  what  par- 
ticulars, then,  did  our  Saviour  allude?  That  Clu-ist  was  to  be  a  liglit 
to  lighten  the  Gentiles  no  less  than  the  glory  of  the  jieople  of  Israel ; 
thtit  the  jjcculiar  privileges  of  the  Jews  were  at  an  end  ;  that  the  Sania- 
ritim,  the  Greek,  and  the  Barl)arian  were  to  st;uid  on  a  level  with  the 
Israelite   in   tlie   Christian  church ;    that  Ch  -ist  did  not  purpose   to 


NOT  INCCTLCATED  IN   THE  EPISTLES.  363 

entlirone  himself  in  worldly  sovereignty,  and  to  constitute  his  apostles 
the  great  men  of  the  earth ;  that  it  was  not  his  will  to  restore  at  that 
time  the  kingdom  to  Israel.  The  post,  then,  which  the  Epistles 
occupy  in  the  sacred  depository  of  revelation  is  not  that  of  communi- 
cations of  new  doctrines.  They  fill  their  station  as  additional  records, 
as  inspired  corroborations,  as  argumentative  concentrations,  as  instruc- 
tive expositions,  of  truths  already  revealed,  —  of  commandments 
already  promulgated.  In  the  explication  of  moral  precepts,  the 
Epistles  frequently  enter  into  large  and  highly  beneficial  details.  — 
Abridged  from  George  Townsend  :  The  JVew  Testament  Arranged, 
part  xiL  note  10. 

But  this  writer  maintains  that  the  doctrine  of  a  Triune  God,  and  of  the 
Deity  of  Christ,  was  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  Gospels. 

The  latest  writings  of  these  three  great  apostles  —  Paul,  Peter, 
and  John  —  contain  no  traces  of  any  other  more  mysterious  doctrines 
than  they  had  received  from  our  Lord,  and  taught  to  their  first  con- 
verts at  the  beginning  of  the  gospel It  may  be  safely  said, 

that  whatever  we  find  in  the  New  Testament,  as  to  a  gradual  com- 
munication of  Christian  truth,  relates  to  this  one  point,  —  that  the 
disciples  were  to  be  led  on  gently  to  a  full  sense  of  the  unimporUmce 
of  the  ceremonies  of  the  Jewish  law.  Christianity  was  given  complete, 
as  to  its  own  truths,  from  the  beginning  of  the  gospel ;  but  the  abso- 
lute sufficiency  of  these  truths,  and  the  needlessness  of  any  other 
system  as  joined  with  them,  was  to  be  learned  only  by  degrees ;  and, 
unhappily,  it  never  was  learned  fully.  —  Dii.  Thomas  Arnold  :  Tlie 
Church,  III. ;  in  Miscellaneous  Works,  pp.  35-7. 

Christ  had  many  things  to  say  of  his  doctrine  which  the  disciples 
were  not  then  in  a  condition  to  understand.  But  he  was  just  about 
to  leave  them ;  and  therefore  he  pointed  them  to  the  Spirit  of  Truth, 
which  was  to  unfold  all  the  truth  he  had  proclaimed.  It  was  not  to 
announce  any  new  doctrine,  but  to  open  the  truth  of  his  doctrine, 
to  glorify  him  in  them,  by  developing  the  full  sense  of  what  he  had 
taught  them.  —  AUGUSTUS  Ne.ander  on  John  xvL  12-14 ;  in  Life 
of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  401. 

As  we  have  already  noticed,  some  theologians  have  thought  that  our 
Lord  did  not  teach  the  doctrines  which  are  now  called  orthodox,  because 
his  disciples  wer;  not  as  yet  able  to  receive  them,  but  that  he  left  these 
doctnnes  to  be  imparted  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  apostles,  and  by  them 
to  be  develojjed  in  their  oral  and  written  discourses.  We  have,  however,  no 
reason  to  believe,  that  the  only-begotten  Sou,  who  was  commissioned  to 


.364  DOCTRINES  BESIDES  THOSE  TADGUT   BY  CUIUST 

reveal  the  will  of  the  Father,  concealed,  while  on  earth,  any  of  the  essential 
principles  of  his  religion;  but  rather,  on  the  contrary,  that  he  had  made 
known  all  things  which  he  had  heard  of  the  Father,  John  i.  18;  xv.  15.  The 
"  many  things  "  which  he  says  (chap.  xvi.  12)  his  disciples  were  not  capa- 
ble of  bearing  did  not  at  all  relate  to  the  essence  of  God,  of  himself,  or  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  respecting  which  the  apostles  never  speak;  but,  as  the 
words  are  interpreted  by  the  best  Trinitarian  commentators,  to  the  abolition 
of  the  ceremonial  law,  the  rejection  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  calling  of 
the  Gentiles,  —  matters  wliich  Jesus  had  indeed  sufficiently  intimated,  but 
had  not  openly  or  directlj'  communicated.  In  his  "  Illustrations  of  the  Truth 
of  the  Christian  Keligion,"  pp.  215-16,  Bishop  Maltby  well  remarks:  "  The 
universality  of  the  new  dispensation,  the  qualifications  of  its  future  mem- 
bers, added  to  the  demolition  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  with  the  ruin  of 
the  Jewish  polity,  might  have  made  a  nation,  not  entirely  blinded  by  former 
views,  understand  that  the  law  was  to  be  absorbed  in  the  gospel.  This, 
however,  was  not  the  case.  .  .  This  was  one  of  the  most  delicate  points  upon 
which  the  discourses  of  our  Lord  could  turn;  yet  even  this  offensive  truth 
he  did  not  entirely  conceal,  though  he  touched  upon  it  with  the  utmost 
circumspection." 

No  one  perhaps  will  muint;iln  that  there  is  any  new  tnith  of  Cliris- 
tianity  set  forth  in  the  Epistles ;  any  truth,  I  mean,  which  does  not 
presupi)Ose  the  whole  truth  of  human  s;\lvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  as 
already  determined  and  complete.  The  Epistles  clearly  imply  that 
the  work,  of  salvation  is  done.  They  repeat  and  insist  on  its  most 
striking  parts ;  urging  chiefly  on  man  what  remains  for  him  to  do,  now^ 
that  Christ  has  done  all  that  God  purposed,  in  behalf  of  man,  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world.  Let  the  experiment  be  lliirly  tried; 
let  tlie  inveterate  idea,  that  the  Epistles  are  the  doctrinal  portion  of 
Scrij)ture,  be  for  a  while  banished  from  the  mind ;  and  let  them  be 
read  simply  as  the  works  of  our  fathers  in  the  faith,  —  of  men  who 
are  commending  us  rather  to  the  love  of  Christ  than  opening  our 
understanding  to  the  mysteries  of  divine  knowledge ;  and,  after  such 
an  exj)eriment,  let  each  decide  for  himself,  whether  the  practical  or 
the  theoretic  view  of  the  Ejjlstles  is  the  correct  one.  For  my  ])art, 
I  CiUinot  doubt  but  that  the  decision  will  l)e  in  favor  of  the  practical 
character  of  them.  The  speculating  theologian  will  perhaps  luiswer 
by  adducing  text  after  text  from  an  Epistle,  in  which  he  will  contend 
th.it  some  dogmatic  truth,  some  theory  or  system,  or  peculiar  view 
of  divine  truth,  is  asserted..  But  "what  is  the  chart"  to  the  wheat  ?  " 
I  apjieal  from  tlic  logical  criticism  of  the  apostle's  words  to  their 
aijostollcal  spirit,  —  from  I'aul  jjhilosophizing  to  Paul  preaching  and 
enti-eating  and  persiuiding.     And  I  ask,  whether  it  is  likely  that  an 


NOT  INCULCATED   IN   TIIE  EPISTLES.  365 

apostle  would  have  adopted  the  form  of  an  epistolary  communication 
for  imparting  mysterious  propositions  to  disciples  with  whom  he 
enjovcd  the  opportunity  of  personal  intercourse,  and  to  whom  he  liad 
already  "  declared  the  wliole  counsel  of  God ; "  whether,  in  preaching 
Christ,  he  would  have  used  a  method  of  communicating  truth  which 
implies  some  scientific  application  of  language,  — •  an  analysis,  at  least, 
of  propositions  into  their  terms,  —  in  order  to  its  being  rightly  under- 
stood. And  I  further  request  it  may  be  considered  whether  it  was 
not  by  such  a  mode  of  inference  from  the  Scripture  language,  as 
would  convert  the  Ejiistles  into  textual  autliorities  on  points  of  con- 
troversy, that  the  very  system  of  the  scholastic  theology  was  erected.  — 
Bishop  Hampden  :  Bampton  Lectures,  pp.  374-5. 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  were  manifestly  directed  to  different 
churches,  and  were  intended  merely  to  silence  doubts  or  answer 
difficulties  proposed  by  them,  and  also  to  correct  and  amend  some 
accidenbil  or  local  corruptions ;  and,  if  we  examine  them  carefully,  we 
shall  find  that  the  greater  portion  of  our  most  important  dogmas,  in- 
stead of  St.  Paul's  defining  and  explaining  them,  are  only  occasionally, 
parenthetically,  and  as  illustrations,  introduced. —  C,\RDINAL  Wiseman  : 
Lectures  on  the  Doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church,  vol.  i.  p.  59. 

We  cannot  believe,  as  Schneckenburger  does,  that  James  wrote  the 
Epistle  at  a  time  when  Christianity  had  not  thoroughly  penetrated  his 
spiritual  life ;  because  there  is  no  proof  that  liis  doctrinal  views  were 
enlarged  at  a  later  period.  Nor  do  we  imagine,  that  any  of  the 
apostles,  after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  became  still  more  enlightened  in 
their  ^^ew  of  divine  things.  Their  doctrinal  development  seems  com- 
plete after  that  crisis.  —  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson  :  Introduction  to  the. 
JVew  Testament,  vol.  iii.  p.  315. 


Agreeably  to  the  extracts  made  in  pp.  351-5,  many  eminent  Trinitarians 
<3istinctly  confess  tliat  our  Lord  was  reserved  in  his  communications  respect- 
ing the  alleged  Divinity  of  his  nature;  or,  in  other  words,  that  he  did  not 
inculcate  the  contradictory  doctrine  of  his  equality  and  identity  with  the 
Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  this  and  the  preceding  section  (p.  356,  sqq.), 
we  have  shown,  from  other  authorities  equally  orthodox  and  respectable, 
that  the  apostles  did  not  promulgate  any  new  or  additional  truths:  whence 
it  indisputably  follows,  that,  if  the  writers  quoted  have  taken  a  proper  view 
of  the  subject,  —  as,  with  some  slight  abatements  from  expressions  neces- 
sarily used  by  Trinitarians,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  they  have, 
—  neither  Jesus  Christ  nor  his  apostles  taught  the  popular  dogma  of  tha 
Trinity. 

31* 


866  THE  DOCTRINE   OF   A  TRIUNE  GOD 


SECT.   VI.  —  A  THrUXE   GOD,   AND  THE   DEITY   OF   CHRIST,   NOT 
DOCTRINES   OF   EXPRESS  REVELATION. 

It  is  reasonable  to  expect,  that  those  doctrines  which  form  the  leading  articles  of 
any  system  should  be  plainly  stated  in  the  book  which  professes  to  make  that  system 
known.  —  Dr.  W.iRnL.tw. 

The  more  you  recede  from  the  Scriptures  by  inferences  and  consequences,  th« 
more  weak  and  dilute  are  your  positions.  —  Lord  Bacon. 

The  word  "  homoousian  "  is  not  found  in  the  Sacred  Writings ;  and 
therefore,  from  these  alone,  what  the  Arians  deny  cannot  be  taught  or 

proved,  except  by  inference If  the  name  "  God  "  is  clearly 

added  to  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  canonical  books,  as  it  is  frequently 
annexed  to  the  Father,  rarely  to  the  Son,  in  the  Gospels  and  Epistles, 
I  shall  acknowledge  myself  mistiiken.  —  Er.\SMUS  :  Opera  Omnia, 
torn.  ix.  pp.  1034,  1173. 

The  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  Son,  the  equality  of 
the  three  persons  in  one  substince,  and  the  distinction  of  the  same 
by  relative  projierties,  are  not  expressed  in  the  Sacred  Writings,  — 
Melchior  Canus  :  TheoL,  lib.  iii.  c.  3,  fund.  2  ;  apud  Sandium,  p.  5. 

It  is  to  be  ol)scrved,  that  cert;iin  articles  are  set  before  us  as  neces- 
sary to  faith  and  salvation,  but  which  are  not  expressly  and  clearly 
contained  in  the  Sacred  Books,  and  which  cannot  be  infallibly  deduced 
from  them ;  and  are  therefore  admitted  only  because  the  ancient  and 
primitive  church  received  them  .in  this  sense  in  councils  and  creeds, 
and  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers.  I  will  sultjoin  examples:  1st,  We 
believe  that  God  is  one  in  essence  and  sul)stiince,  and  three  in  per- 
sonality and  subsistence ;  but  Scripture  does  not  expressly  oj)en  up 
this  distinction,  or  sliow  it  by  imdoubted  inl'erence,  &c.  —  Masexius  : 
Medit   Concord. ;  apud  Sandium,  pp.  7,  8. 

It  is  nowhere,  we  confess,  said  ex])ressly,  and  in  so  many  words, 
"  The  Holy  Sjjirit  is  the  Most  High  God."  —  Herman  WITSIUS : 
Dissertations  on  the  Creed,  Diss,  xxiii.  16. 

Simihirly,  .Ikkemy  Taylou,  in  Works,  vol.  xiii.  pp.  14.'J-4,  who,  with 
WiTsius  mill  other  Trinitarians,  moans,  of  course,  by  the  "  Holy  S|)irit,"  a 
third  i)crson  in  the  Godlieail.  In  vol.  vi.  p.  510,  the  bi.sliop,  with  preat  pood 
sense,  says  what  is  very  applicable  to  the  subject  of  the  present  section: 
**  God  hath  plainly  and  literally  described  all  his  will,  both  in  belief  and 
practice,  in  which  our  essential  duty,  the  duty  of  all  men,  is  concerned — . 
In  plain  exjircssions  we  are  to  look  for  our  duty,  and  not  in  the  more  secret 
places  and  dark  corners  of  the  Scri[)ture." 


NOT  EXPRESSLY  REVEALED.  3B7 

Our  belief  in  the  Trinity,  the  co-etprnity  of  the  Son  of  God  with 
his  Father,  the  proceeding  of  the  Spirit  from  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
. . .  these,  with  such  other  principal  points, . . .  are  in  Scripture  nowhere 
to  be  found  by  express  literal  mention ;  only  deduced  they  are  out  of 
Scripture  by  collection.  —  Richard  Hooker  :  Ecclesiastical  Polity, 
book  i.  chap.  xiv.  2 ;  in  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  187. 

There  are  many  things,  which,  although  they  are  not  read  expressly 
and  definitely  in  Hoi)'  Scripture,  yet,  by  the  common  consent  of  all 
Christians,  are  attained  from  it.  For  instance,  "  That  in  the  ever- 
blessed  Trinity  three  distinct  ])ersons  are  to  be  worshipped,  —  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  —  and  that  each  of  these  is  very  God,  and  yet 
that  there  is  only  one  God ;  that  Christ  is  -deuvOpuiTog,  very  God  and 
very  man  in  one  and  the  same  person."  —  BiSHOP  Beat^ridge  ;  apud 
Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  77,  in  vol.  iii.  p.  30. 

It  must  be  owned,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  it  Is  proposed 
in  our  Articles,  our  Liturgy,  our  Creeds,  is  not  in  so  many  words 
taught  us  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  What  we  profess  in  our  prayers 
we  nowhei'e  read  in  Scriptiu-e,  —  that  the  one  God,  the  one  Lord,  is 
not  one  only  person,  but  three  persons  in  one  substance.  There  is  no 
such  text  in  the  Scripture  as  this,  that  "  the  Unity  in  Trinity,  and  the 
Trinity  in  Unity,  is  to  be  worshi]jped."  No  one  of  the  inspired  writers 
hath  expressly  affirmed,  that  in  the  Trinity  none  is  afore  or  after  other, 
none  is  greater  or  less  than  another,  but  the  whole  three  persons  are 
co-eternal  together  and  co-equal.  But,  <S:c.  —  BiSHOP  SilALRlDGE : 
Sixty  Sermons ;  No.  XXXHI.  p.  348. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  these  doctrines  [the  Dinnity  of  Christ  and 
the  Holy  Ghost]  are  plainly  contiiined  in  every  text  of  Scripture  which 
speaks  of  them,  but  only  that  in  some  one  text  or  more  they  are  pro- 
posed to  us  convincingly  and  clearly ;  and,  if  a  truth  be  once  deHvered 
so  clearly  as  to  leave  no  doubt,  it  is  the  same  thing  to  us,  who  acknow- 
ledge the  divine  authority  of  all  parts  of  Scripture,  as  if  it  were  many 
times  there  rejjeated.  For  example,  were  there  no  other  text  for  the 
proof  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  in  the  sense  in  which  the 
church  of  God  hath  always  ])rofessed  to  believe  it,  but  that  only  where 
our  Saviour  commands  his  disciples  to  "  baptize  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Matt,  xxviii.  19),  or  that 
where  St.  John's])eaks  of  the  "three  witnesses  in  heaven"  (1  John 
V.  7),  either  of  these  texts  would  be  sufficient  to  make  that  doctrine 
an  evident  part  of  Scripture,  though,  in  all  the  other  passages  usually 
produced   for  it,  it  should  be  allowed    to   be   expressed   obscnrely 


368  TUE  DOCTRINE  OF   A   TRIUNE   GOD 

Ag-aiii :  Neitlicr  is  it  pretended  that  these  doctrines  are  anywliere, 
throughout  the  whole  Bible,  expressed  with  the  utmost  degree  of 
evidence  and  clearness  which  words  are  anyways  possibly  capaljle  of, 
but  only  that  they  are  so  expressed  that  a,n  honest,  impartial  mind 
cannot  well  miss  the  sense  of  them.  It  might  have  been  said,  indeed, 
in  so  many  words,  that  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  were,  from  all 
eternity,  distinct  from  the  Father,  and,  together  with  liim,  one  God 
blessed  for  ever,  and  equally  the  objects  of  our  rehgious  worship  and 
service.  But,  though  this  be  not  said  there  in  so  many  terms,  it  is 
said,  however,  in  such  as  an  unbiased,  well-meaning  man  cannot  mis- 
take. —  Bishop  Atterbury  :  Sermons  and  Discourses  ;  No.  X.  in 
vol.  iii.  p.  157-8, 

Here  it  is  distinctly  conceded,  that  the  Trinity,  and  the  Deity  of  Christ 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  not  anywhere  expresseil  in  the  Bible  with  the 
utmost  evidence  and  clearness ;  though  at  the  same  time  it  is  implied,  that, 
hi  some  one  text  or  more,  they  are  delivered  so  clearly  as  to  leave,  in  the 
minds  of  tliose  who  acknowledge  the  divine  authority  of  all  parts  of  Scrip- 
ture, no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  these  doctrines.  Two  passages,  unquestionably 
the  clearest  that  could  be  found,  are  adduced  by  way  of  example;  namely, 
Jhitt.  xxviii.  19,  which  contains  the  formula  of  baptism;  and  1  John  v.  7, 
wliich  speaks  of  three  heavenly  witnesses.  The  very  citing,  however,  of 
such  texts  is,  we  think,  a  tacit  acknowledgment  that  there  is  not  one  pas- 
sage in  the  whole  compass  of  the  Bible  —  from  the  first  verse  of  Genesis  to 
the  last  in  the  Apocalypse  —  which,  with  the  slightest  degree  of  clearness, 
expresses  the  ))roposition,  that  there  are  tiiree  persons  in  one  God.  We  do 
not  deny,  that,  by  taking  for  grunted  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Deity 
of  Christ,  and  of  another  person  dilTerent  from  t\\fi  Father  and  the  Son,  we 
may,  with  some  show  of  reason,  suppose  a  reference  made  in  JIatt.  xxviii.  19 
and  1  John  v.  7  to  that  doctrine;  without,  however,  having  good  ground  for 
deducing  it  from  thence.  But  it  seems  impossible  for  any  man,  with  a  duo 
regard  to  propriety  of  language,  to  assert  that  Christ,  in  the  former  passage, 
and  John,  or  his  interpolator,  in  the  latter,  designed  to  expuess,  oven  with 
the  lowest  degree  of  "  clearness,"  that  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God;  and  yet  they  are  not  three  Gods,  but  one  God. 
See  pp.  10,  11,  -218-19  [4],  2-25  19],  357-8,  371. 

The  texts  hero  spoken  of  will  bo  considered  more  at  length,  in  their 
respective  places,  in  future  volumes. 

I  said,  and  I  still  sixy,  that  it  was  their  common  principle  [the  prin- 
cijile  of  the  Platonizing  fathers],  that  the  existence  of  the  Son  Hows 
necessarily  from  the  divine  intellect  exerted  on  itself.  I  showed  iiow 
the  Son's  eternity  will  follow  from  tliis  j)rinciple.  And  I  discovered, 
what  indeed  I  niiglit  have  concealed,  that  I  myself  concur  in  this 
princi])le  with  the  I'Litonists ;   for  1  s;iid  tliat  it  seems  to  me  to  be 


v<OT   EXPRESSLY  REVEALED.  369 

founded  in  Scripturt.  by  which  I  meant  not  to  assert  that  it  is  so 
expressly  declared  in  Scripture,  that  1  would  undertake  to  prove  it  by 
the  Scriptures  to  others,  in  the  same  manner  that  I  would  undertiike 
to  prove  that  the  world  was  created  by  Jesus  Christ.  .  .  .  Upon  such 
points,  the  evidence  of  Holy  Scriptiu-e  is,  indeed,  the  only  thing  that 
amounts  to  proof.  —  Bishop  Horsley  :  Disq.  IV.,  Tracts,  pp.  460-1. 

In  the  same  disquisition,  the  learned  bishop  soundly  berates  Dr.  Priestley 
for  his  ignorance,  II  not  knowing  that  this  demonstration  of  the  Son's  eter- 
nal existence  had  Veen  laid  down  not  only  by  some  of  the  Platonic  fathers, 
but  by  the  Romis\i  church  after  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  also  by  Melanc- 
THoN.  Though  evidently  a  favorite  opinion  of  the  bishop's,  he  has  the 
good  sense  to  make  no  attempt  to  prove  it  from  the  Bible,  but  rather  ac 
knowledges  that  it  is  not  "  expressly  declared  in  Scripture." 

It  may  siartle  those  who  are  but  acquainted  with  the  popular 
writings  of  this  d;iy,  yet  I  believe  the  most  accurate  consideration  of 
the  subject  will  lead  us  to  acquiesce  in  the  statement  as  a  general  truth, 
that  the  doctrines  in  question  [that  is,  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  the 
incarnation,  and  the  atonement]  have  never  been  learned  merely  from 
Scripture.  Surely  the  Sacred  Volume  was  never  intended,  and  was 
not  adapted,  to  teach  us  our  creed.  However,  certain  it  is,  that  we 
can  prove  our  creed  from  it,  when  it  has  once  been  taught  us,  and  in 
spite  of  individual  producible  exceptions  to  this  general  rule.  From 
the  very  first,  the  rule  has  been,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  for  the  church  to 
teach  the  truth,  and  then  appeal  to  the  Scripture  in  viirdication  of  its 
own  teaching ;  and,  fi-om  the  first,  it  has  been  the  error  of  heretics  to 
neglect  the  information  provided  for  them,  and  to  attempt  of  them- 
selves a  work  to  which  they  are  unequal,  —  the  eliciting  a  sjstematic 
doctrine  from  the  scattered  notices  of  the  truth  which  Scripture  con- 
tains. —  John  Henry  Newilan  :  Avians  of  the  Fourth  Century, 
p.  55;  apud  Wiseman^ s  Lectures,  vol.  i.  p.  113. 

The  sublime  truths  which  it  [the  Athanasian  Creed,  so  called]  con- 
tains are  not  expressed  in  the  language  of  Holy  Scripture ;  nor  could 
they  possibly  have  been  so  expressed,  since  the  inspired  writers  were 
not  studious  minutely  to  expound  mscrutiible  mysteries.  Neither  can 
it  plead  any  sanction  from  high  antiquit)',  or  even  traditional  authority; 
smce  it  was  composed  many  centuries  after  the  time  of  the  ajjostles, 
in  a  very  corrupt  age  of  a  corrupt  church,  and  composed  in  so  much 
obscurity  that  the  very  pen  from  which  it  proceeded  is  not  certainly 
known  to  us.  —  George  Waddington  :  History  oj  the  Church, 
j*p.  220-1. 


370  TriE   DOCTIUNE   OF   A   TIUUNE  GOD 

This  doctrine  [that  of  a  Trinity  in  the  Unity  of  the  Godlicad]  is  not 
dogmati&illy  revealed  to  us  in  any  express  sentence  settuig  it  forth  to 
our  belief  in  so  many  formal  terms;  but  results  rather,  as  a  real  truth 
of  revelation,  from  the  concurrent  evidence  of  a  variety  of  jxissages,  in 
which  the  Deity  is  represented  as  performing  offices  for  the  good  of 
man  under  three  distinct  hypostases  or  persons.  —  Bishop  Hampden  : 
Essay  on  the  Philosophical  Evidence  of  Christianity,  j^p.  158-9. 

How  can  a  doctrine  be  called  "a  real  truth  of  revelation,"  when  it  is  the 
result  merely  of  our  own  reasonings  from  a  collection  of  passages,  which,  if 
they  proved  any  thing  in  the  Trinitarian  direction,  would  prove  either  too 
much  or  too  little  for  Trinitariaiiism,  —  either  that  the  Deity  bore  only 
three  relations  to  his  creatures,  whereas  he  is  represented  in  Scripture  as 
sustaining  a  great  variety  of  characters;  or  that  he  manifested  himself  to 
men  as  three  distinct  Beings  or  Gods,  in  opposition  to  the  united  voices  of 
nature  and  revelation  ?  For,  unless  Holy  Writ  expressly  and  unambiguously 
declares  that  three  distinct  divine  persons  constitute  only  one  God,  we  must 
infallibly  be  led,  by  the  course  of  reasoning  adopted,  to  one  or  the  other  of 
the  alternatives  mentioned. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Tritiity  is  rather  a  doctrine  of  inference  and 
of  indirect  intimation,  deduced  from  what  is  revealed  respecting  the 
Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  intimated  in  the  notices 
ot  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  in  tlie  form  of  baptism,  and  in 
some  of  the  apostolic  benedictions,  than  a  doctrine  directly  and  expU- 

citly  declared "We  have  now  come  to  the  limit  of  explicit 

revelation,  and  are  entering  upon  the  region  of  reason  and  inference. 
...  I  admit  that  we  have  not  the  same  clear  light  to  conduct  us  which 
we  have  hitherto  enjoyed.  I  admit  that  a  doctrine  of  inference  ought 
never  to  be  jjlaced  on  a  footing  of  equality  with  a  doctrine  of  direct 
and  explicit  revelation.  It  is  very  obvious,  that,  in  so  far  as  our  belief 
of  any  doctrine  is  the  result  of  inference,  it  is  not  an  exercise  of  tiiith 
in  the  testimony  of  God,  but  in  the  accuracy  of  our  o\n\  reasoning.  . . 
That  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  distinct  person  from  the  Father  and  the  Son 
seems  to  be  removed  one  step  from  a  direct,  expUcit  revelation,  by 
the  necessity  of  previously  determining  that  a  being  c;ip;ible  of  willing, 
choosing,  designing,  conuuanding,  forbidding,  of  loving,  being  dis- 
pleased or  grieved,  and  other  particulars  of  a  similar  nature,  is  to  be 
regarded  as  a  person.  That  there  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead 
is  a  second  remove  from  exjilicit,  direct  revekition ;  beamse,  after 
defining  what  we  mean  by  a  person,  and  finding  that  the  Father  is 
tlius  deteriuined  to  be  i  person,  and  also  the  Son  and  the  Spirit,  wliile 


NOT   EXPRESSLY   REVEALED.  371 

yet  we  believe  that  there  is  only  one  God,  we  infei  from  the  whole 
tliat  there  are  three  persons  in  one  God.  —  James  Daklile  :  Jeaus 
Christ  the  Great  God  our  Saviour,  pp.  81,  369. 

What  shall  we  say,  when  we  consider  that  a  case  of  doctrine,  neces- 
sary doctrine,  the  very  highest  and  most  sacred,  may  be  produced 
where  the  argument  lies  as  little  on  the  surface  of  Scripture  —  where 
the  proof,  though  most  conclusive,  is  as  indirect  and  circuitous  —  as  that 
for  Episcopacy,  viz.,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ?  Where  is  this  solemn 
and  comfortable  mystery  formally  stated  in  Scripture,  as  we  find  it  in 
the  creeds  ?  Why  is  it  not .''  Let  a  man  consider  whether  all  the 
objections  which  he  urges  against  the  Scripture  argument  for  Epis- 
copacy may  not  be  turned  against  his  own  belief  in  the  Trinity.  It  is 
a  happy  thing  for  themselves  that  men  are  inconsistent ;  yet  it  is 
miserable  to  advocate  and  establish  a  principle,  which,  not  in  their  own 
case  indeed,  but  in  the  case  of  others  who  learn  it  of  them,  leads  to 

Socinianism A  person  who  denies  the  apostolical  succession 

of  the  ministry,  because  it  is  not  clearly  taught  in  Scripture,  ought,  I 
conceive,  if  consistent,  to  deny  the  Godhead  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
is  nowhere  literally  stated  in  Scriptm-e.  ...  If  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
never  distinctly  called  a  sacrifice,  or  Chi-istian  ministers  are  never 
called  priests,  stiU  let  me  ask,  is  the  Holy  Ghost  ever  expressly  called 
God  in  Scrijjture  ?  Nowhere :  we  infer  it  from  what  is  said ;  we  com- 
pare parallel  passages.  —  Oxford  or  Anglican  Doctors  :  Tracts 
for  the  Times,  No,  45,  in  vol.  i.  p.  4 ;  and  No.  85,  in  vol.  v.  p.  1 1. 

The  Bible  tells  us  of  the  Trinitj'  in  separate  portions  only ;  for  out 
of  the  single  propositions  it  has  not  even  formed  any  general  and 
vionjunct  j)ropositi()n  that  is  comprehensive  of  them  all,  the  only  sem- 
blance of  this  being  contained  in  that  verse  of  the  three  bearing  record 
in  lieaven,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  those  three 
being  one ;  which,  by  the  generality  of  critics,  is  now  admitted  to 
have  been  the  importation  of  a  formal  deliverance  from  some  of  the 
compends  of  orthodoxy.  —  Dr.  Thomas  Chalmers  :  Institvies  of 
Theologii,  vol.  ii.  {Posthumous  Works,  vol.  viii.)  p.  435, 

This  doctrine  [the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity]  does  not  strictly  belong 
to  the  fundamental  articles  of  the  Christian  faith ;  as  appears  suffi- 
ciently evident  from  the  fact,  that  it  is  expressly  held  forth  in  no  one 
particular  passage  of  the  New  Testament;  for  the  only  one  in  which 
this  is  done  —  the  passage  rekiting  to  the  three  that  bear  record 
(1  John  V.)  —  is  undoubtedh'  spurious,  and  in  its  ungenuine  shape 
testifies  to  the  fact  how  foreign  such  a  collocation  is  from  the  stvle  of 


372  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  A  TRIUNE  GOD 

the  New-Testament  Scriptures.  We  find  in  the  New  Testament  no 
other  fundamental  article  besides  that  of  which  the  apostle  Paul  says, 
that  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  the  annuncLation 
of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah ;  and  Christ  himself  designates,  as  the  founda- 
tion of  his  religion,  the  faith  in  the  only  true  God,  and  in  Jesus  Christ 
whom  he  hath  sent,  John  xvii.  3.  What  Paul  styles  distinctively  the 
mystery  relates  in  no  one  instance  to  what  belongs  to  the  hiddep 
depths  of  the  divine  essence,  but  to  the  divine  purpose  of  salvation 
which  found  its  accomplishment  in  a  fact.  But  that  doctrine  presujj- 
poses,  in  order  to  its  being  understood  in  its  real  significixncy  for  the 
Christian  consciousness,  this  fundamental  article  of  the  Christian  faith ; 
and  we  recognize  therein  the  essential  contents  of  Christianity,  summed 
up  in  brief,  as  may  be  gathered  from  the  determinate  form  which  is 
given  to  Theism  by  its  connection  with  this  fundamental  article.  It  is 
this  doctrine  by  which  God  becomes  known  as  the  original  Fountain 
of  all  existence ;  as  he  by  whom  the  i-ational  creation,  that  had  become 
estranged  from  him,  is  brought  back  to  the  fellowship  with  him ;  and 
as  he  in  the  fellowship  with  whom  it  from  thenceforth  subsists,  —  the 
threefold  relation  in  which  God  stiinds  to  mankind,  as  primal  ground, 
mediator,  and  end;  Creator,  Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier;  in  which  three- 
fold relation  the  whole  Christian  knowledge  of  God  is  comi)letely 
announced.  —  Augustus  Neander  :  General  History  of  the  Church, 
vol.  i.  p.  572. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  a  fundamental  article  of  the  Christian 
relififion,  for  it  is  not  expressed  in  any  one  passage  of  the  New-Testament 
Scriptures;  but  a  belief  in  the  only  true  God,  and  in  Jesus  Christ  whom 
ho  hath  sent,  is  the  very  foundation  of  Christianity,  and  pervades  these 
writings.  So  says  Neandkr.  Should  not,  therefore,  the  "  Clu-istinn  con- 
sciousness "  accept  the  fundamental  article  of  tlie  Christian  faith,  which 
t'orms  the  great  principle  of  Uiiitarianism,  and  reject  the  verj-  idea  of  there 
being  three  persons,  individuals,  agents,  beings,  characters,  or  relations,  in 
one  God? 

It  must  be  recollected  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  furnish,  ready 
formed,  a  systematic  and  scientific  stiitement  of  the  doctrine  in 
question  [the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity].  —  Professor  Siiedd  :  Intro 
diictonj  Essay  to  Coleridge's  Works,  vol.  i.  pj).  4 1-2. 

To  solve  tlie  problem,  how  a  dogina  wliich  is  not  systematically  stat(  d 
in  the  Scri])turcs  could  be  derived  from  them,  the  learned  professor  says 
tliot  "  the  orthodox  mind"  brought  into  the  controversy  with  the  "  hetero- 
dox" "  au  antecedent  interpreting  idea."     He  adds,  however,  what  we 


NuT   EXPRESSLY   REVEALED.  373 

migl.t  expect  from  a  Trinitarian  who  has  uttered  an  unwelcome  admission, 
that  this  idea  of  tlie  Trinity  was  "  not  entirely  independent  of  the  Scrip- 
tures." 

The  proper  inquii-y  would  seem  to  be,  What  ^-iew  of  this  matter 
[the  dinne  Tripersonahty]  is,  on  the  whole,  most  in  accordance  with 
the  teaching  of  Scripture  ?  In  the  absence  of  any  direct  positive 
testimony  on  the  point,  what  may  be  fairly  and  legitimately  inferred 
from  what  the  Bible  does  affirm  respecting  the  Divine  Being  ?  — 
Joseph  Haven,  Jun.,  in  the  jVew  Englander  for  February,  1850 ; 
vol.  viii.  (new  series,  vol.  ii.)  p.  2. 

Though  he  regards  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  one  merely  of  inference, 
this  writer  says  that  the  Scriptures,  in  the  plainest  terms,  assert  the  Unity 
ot  God,  and  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 


We  opened  this  section  with  an  appropriate  motto  from  Dr.  Wardlaw's 
"  Discourses  on  the  Socinian  Controversy,"  and  would  close  it  with  the 
equally  appropriate  remarks  of  Dr.  Chalmeks  ("  Institutes  of  Theology," 
book  iii.  chap.  ix.  §  23,  28),  adding  a  few  words  by  way  of  illustration:  "In 
every  book  of  moral  or  doctrinal  instruction,  it  is  natural  to  expect  that  the 
most  important  truth  will  be  the  most  pervading;  that  just  in  proportion  to 
its  value  will  be  the  frequency  of  its  recurrence,  or  the  number  of  passages 
wherewith,  by  direct  avowal  or  by  implication  and  allusion,  it  is  in  any  way 
interwoven.  .  .  .  Like  the  cheap  and  common  beauties  of  nature,  will  not 
the  great  qualities  of  Christian  truth  both  be  so  placed  and  so  disseminated 
that  the  eye  might  easily  see  and  the  hand  might  readily  apprehend 
themV" 

To  apply  the  remarks  of  these  eminent  writers:  From  the  concessions 
made,  it  has  been  seen  that  the  doctrine  of  a  Triune  God  is  not  "  plainly 
stated  "  in  the  Bible;  that  it  is  not  "  so  placed  and  so  disseminated  that  the 
eye  may  easily  see  and  the  hand  readily  apprehend  "  it ;  that,  in  short,  it  is 
a  doctrine  of  mere  inference,  and  not  of  express  revelation,  tliere  being  no 
passage  in  the  Sacred  Writings  in  wliich  it  is  expressly  mentioned.  But, 
if  this  doctrine  was  true,  and  was  of  so  astonishing  a  character  as  to  be 
entirely  out  of  the  province  of  reason  to  discover  it,  as  is  almost  universally 
admitted,  it  would  surely  be  "reasonable"  and  "natural  to  expect"  tliat  it 
would  "  pervade  "  the  Bible,  not  only  "  by  implication  and  allusion,"  so 
readily  takefi  for  granted  when  the  mind  of  a  reader  is  prepossessed  with 
the  value  of  an  hypothesis,  but  by  "  direct  avowal;  "  and  "  that  just  in  pro- 
portion to  its  value"  would  "  be  the  frequency  of  its  recurrence,"  in  terms 
as  clear  and  express,  at  least,  as  those  of  human  creeds  and  confessions; 
rendering  altogether  unnecessary  the  laborious  process  of  collecting  and 
collating  passages,  some  of  them  of  a  dark  and  dubious  cliaracter,  and  ilraw- 
ing  from  them  conclusions  mysterious  and  unintelligible,  if  not  revolting  to 
reason. 

32 


874  THE  DOCTRINE  OF   A  TRIUNE  GOD 


SECT.   VII.  —  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   A  TRUHVE   GOD,   AND   OF   THE  DEIT! 
OF   CHRIST,   CANXOT   BE   PROMi:D   FROM   HOI-Y   SCRIPTURE. 

They  [the  proof;;]  had  need  be  both  full  and  clear,  before  a  doctrine  of  this  nature 
[that  of  the  Trinity]  can  be  pretended  to  be  proved  by  them.  —  Bishop  Burnet. 

I  hope  the  IJoiuanists  will  not  disadvantage  the  catholic  cause  so  much  as  to 
confess  that  the  Godhead  of  Christ  .  .  .  cannot  be  proved  by  Scripture,  and  that  the 
fathers  were  forced  to  fly  to  unwritten  traditions  for  proof  of  it.  —  Da.  Ricuard  Field. 

It  would  appear  that  the  good  doctor  betrayed  his  own  fears  for  the 
validity  and  soundness  of  the  evidence  in  favor  of  the  Deity  of  Christ,  and 
therefore,  as  the  orthodox  themselves  reason,  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity;  for, 
as  we  shall  immediately  show,  Roman  Catiiolics  have  often  indeed  "  con- 
fessed that  the  Godhead  of  Ciirist,"  with  its  accompanying  dogmas,  "cannot 
be  proved  by  Scripture;"  tlius  "disadvantaging"  the  cause  of  Trinitarian- 
ism,  as  acknowledged  and  deplored  in  the  following  passage  by  the  excellent 
Jekemy  Taylor,  in  "  Dissuasive  from  Popery,"  part  ii.  book  i.  sect.  iii.  1:  — 

"  I  cannot  but  observe  and  deplore  the  sad  consequents  of  the  Roman 
doctors'  pretension,  that  this  '  great  mj-stery  of  godliness,  God  manifested 
in  the  flesh,'  relies  wholly  upon  unwritten  traditions;  for  the  Socinians, 
knowing  that  tradition  was  on  both  sides  claimed  in  this  article,  please 
themselves  in  the  concession  of  their  adversaries,  that  this  is  not  to  be 
proved  by  Scripture.  So  they  allege  the  testimony  of  Eccius,  and  Cardi- 
nal HosiL's,  one  of  the  legates,  presiding  at  Trent:  '  Doctrinam  de  trino  et 
uno  Deo,  esse  dogma  traditionis,  et  ex  Scriptura  nulla  ratione  probari  posse.' 
The  same  was  affirmed  by  '1'anner,  and  all  that  wei-e  on  that  side,  in  the 
conference  at  Ratisbon.  by  Hieronymus  k  S.  Hyacintho,  and  others." 

Bishop  Taylor  here  uses-  in  the  Trinitarian  sense  the  phrase,  "  God 
manifested  in  the  flesh;"  referring  it  to  the  dogma  of  tiie  incarnation  of  a 
being  called  God  the  Son,  which  Unitarians  regard  as  entirely  unscriptural. 

We  believe  the  doctrine  of  a  Triune  God,  because  we  have  received 
it  by  tradition,  though  not  mentioned  at  all  in  Scrijiture.  —  Abridged 
from  Cardinal  Hosius:  Conf.  Calhol.  Fidei  Christ.,  cap.  27. 

That  the  Holy  Spirit  should  be  adored,  that  the  Son  is  consubstan- 
tial  with  the  Father,  and  of  the  same  nature,  Szc,  we  do  not  perceive 
so  set  forth  in  Scrijjturc  that  heretics  am  be  convinced  without  the 
church  acting  as  interpreter.  —  PossEViN ;  apud  Sandium,  p.  5. 

Concerning  the  Trinity,  whether  there  are  three  really  distinct 
persons ;  concerning  the  eternal  Sftoovaia,  the  generation  of  the  Son 
from  the  substiuice  of  the  Father,  the  equality  of  the  jjersons  in  llie 
Godhead,  tlie  two  natures  in  Ciirist,  and  the  Deity  of  the  Holy  S])irit, 
the  church  ought  to  determine :  the  Scriptures  cannot.  —  COPPE-V- 
8TEIN ;  apud  Sandium,  pp.  5,  G. 


CANNOT  BE  PROA'ED  FKOM   SCRIPTURE.  375 

Those  [the  Lutherans  and  Cahinists]  who  bind  themselves  to 
Scripture  alone,  that  is,  to  written  words,  and  who  do  not  set  up  any 
other  rule  or  law  of  belief,  sweat  to  no  purpose,  and  are  conquered  by 
their  own  weapons,  as  often  as  they  join  battle  with  such  pests  [the 
Antitrinitarians]  as  conceal  and  defend  themselves  likewise  with  the 
language  of  Scripture  alone.  And  we  know  from  history  that  this 
frequently  happened  to  them  in  the  conferences  and  disputes  into 
which  they  entered  with  the  Photinians  and  the  Arians.  —  Petavius  : 
De  Trin.,  lib.  iii.  cap.  xi.  §  9;  Thiol.  Dog.,  torn.  ii.  p.  301. 

That  the  Son  is  of  the  same  essence  as  the  Father,  or  consul)stan- 
tial  with  him,  is  not  manifest  in  any  part  of  Sacred  Scripture,  either 
in  express  words  or  by  certi^in  and  immutable  deduction.  .  .  .  Not  in 
express  language,  because  this  phrase,  "  of  the  same  essence,"  never 
occurs  in  the  Sacred  Writings ;  nor  by  infallible  deduction,  because 
nothing  of  such  a  character  can  by  any  means  rest  on  reason  and 
Scripture  which  is  at  variance  with  Scripture  itself,  and  the  principles 

of  reason They  believe  those  matters  which  are  propounded 

by  Athanasius  in  the  Creed  on  the  Trinity,  both  as  respects  the  dis- 
tinction of  persons  and  of  the  divine  nature,  and  the  equality  of  its 
attributes,  and  as  respects  also  the  divine  processions ;  Christ  begotten 
by  the  Father  from  eternity,  the  Holy  Ghost  not  begotten,  but  pro- 
ceeding from  both,  nor  only  from  either.  These  and  other  opinions 
of  the  Protestants  no  one  can  prove  from  irrefragable  deduction  from 
the  Sacred  Writings,  the  traditionary  word  of  God  being  laid  aside. 
This  request  has  often  been  made,  but  no  one  has  made  it  good. 
Scripture  itself  would  in  many  places  have  seemed  to  exhibit  the 
opposite,  unless  the  church  had  Uiught  us  otherwise.  —  Masenius  ; 
apud  Sandium,  pp.  9-11. 

It  is  obvious,  that,  if  any  articles  are  particularly  necessary  to  be 
known  and  believed,  they  are  those  which  point  to  the  God  whom  we 
are  to  adore,  and  the  moral  precepts  which  we  are  to  observe.  Now, 
is  it  demonstratively  evident,  from  mere  Scripture,  that  Christ  is  God, 
and  to  be  adored  as  such  ?  Most  modem  Protestants  of  eminence 
answer  no.  —  Dr.  John  ^NIilner  :  End  of  Religious  Controversy, 
Let.  9^  p.  76. 

As  to  faith,  we  should  be  almost  ready  to  retract  every  word  that 
we  have  written,  if  a  well-attested  case  could  be  proved  to  us  of  any 
one,  left  to  learn  rehgion  from  the  Bible,  having  hence  deduced  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or  of  one  only  God  in  three  real  persons ;  or 
tliat  of  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord,  m  its  true  sense,  as  consubstantial  to 


Oib  A  TRIUXE  GOD   NOT   PROVABLE  FROM  SCRIPTURE. 

the  Father,  as  being  one  in  person,  and  having  two  perfect  nature?. 
These  are  the  two  dogmas  which  the  church  has  considered  essential 
to  salvation,  and  fundamentU  of  all  revealed  religion;  yet  we  feel 
confident  that  no  single  person  has  ever  discovered  these  for  himself 
in  the  Bible,  and  that  they  are  only  believed  by  Bible  Christians 
(wliere  they  are  believed)  in  consequence  of  a  self-deceit  or  self- 
im])osition  in  fancjing  that  they  hold  on  Scripture  evidence  what  ill 
reality  they  only  maintiiin  beaxuse  they  have  been  so  taught  in  church, 
that  is,  on  the  e\-idence  of  their  clergj-man.  —  Dublin  Review  fok 
October,  1852 ;  as  quoted  in  Christian  Examiner  for  Jan.  1853. 


To  the  same  purport,  —  according  to  Locke,  in  his  "  Commonplace 
Book," —  Bellakjiine,  Gokdomus  Huni<.eius,  Gretser,  Tanner,  Vega, 
and  WiEKUS.  Several  other  R()in;in  CatliDJics  are  referred  to  by  Sandius 
(in  his  "  Scriptura  S.  Triiiitatis  Uevelatrix,"  pp.  4-17)  as  speaking  to  the 
same  effect. 

It  is  a  curious  anomaly  in  the  history  of  religious  sects,  that,  in  their 
discussions  with  Koman  Catholics,  Trinitarian  Protestants  are  wont  to  con- 
tend earnestly  for  the  due  exercise  of  the  intellectual  powers  in  matters 
pertaining  to  theology  and  religion;  but,  in  their  zealous  warfare  with  their 
fellow-Protestants  the  Unitarians,  they  not  unfrequently  accuse  them  of 
leaning  too  much  to  their  own  understandings,  and  of  rejecting  the  plain 
instructions  of  Sacred  Scri[)ture,  because,  in  the  honest  use  of  their  rational 
faculties,  the  believers  in  the  simple  oneness  of  God  have  come  to  a  conclu- 
sion diderent  from  theirs.  More  curious  still,  many  of  the  very  persons  who 
thus  act  so  inconsistently,  are,  as  we  have  shown  in  the  sixth  section  of  the 
present  chapter,  obliged,  from  the  force  of  truth,  to  acknowledge  that 
the  doctrines  which  they  espouse,  and  which  they  assert  to  be  essential  to 
salvation,  are  not  directly  set  forth  in  the  pages  of  the  Bible,  but  must  be 
gathered  by  a  sort  of  inferential  proof,  arising  from  the  use,  or  rather  from 
the  abuse,  of  that  rcsuson  which  they  so  frequently  represent  as  at  war 
with  the  doctrines  of  Holy  Writ.  It  is  also  a  remarkable  fact,  tl;at  the 
Koman  Catholic  has  often  triumphed  over  his  Protestant  antagonist  by 
demonstrating  tliat  the  great  principle  of  Protestantism  —  the  right  of  indi- 
viduals to  interpret  Scripture,  without  resting  on  tradition  and  the  authority 
of  tl^e  churcli  —  incvitaljjy  leads  to  Unitarianism.  Witness  the  discussions 
of  tlie  Bkllaicmixes,  the  Pktavii,  and  the  Masknii,  with  the  Trinitarian 
Heformers  of  their  day;  the  Macjuikes,  tiie  Hugiieses,  the  Fkenohes,  and 
the  Wise.mans,  witlnninistersof  the  Kstablishod  Church  of  England;  and  the 
learMC<l  divines  of  tlie  Puscyite  school  with  the  "  evangelical  "  soction  of 
their  own  church. 


377 


CHAPTER  VII. 

iOD  IS  ONE.  —  THE  FATHER  ONLY,  THE  TRUE  GOD. 


SECT.  I.  —  TILE  EXISTENCE  OF  A  TRIUNE  GOD  NOT  DISCERNIBLE  BT 
THE   LIGHT  OF   NATURE. 

What  more  could  fright  my  faith  than  Three  in  One?  —  Drtden. 

Bt  the  light  of  nature  we  may  discern  the  existence,  the  unity,  and  the 
providence  of  God,  but  not  in  respect  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit ;  for  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity  is  completely  hidden  from  our 
natural  light.  —  Salmeron  :  Commentarii,  tom.  iv.  p.  505. 

From  the  principles  of  nature  the  Trinity  cannot  be  made  knowTi 
to  us.  —  Theodore  Hackspan  :  JVotfB  in  Difficilia  Scriptw  a.  Loca, 
tom.  i.  p.  534. 

AVhut  is  there  in  the  whole  Book  of  God  that  nature,  at  fii-st  sight, 
doth  more  recoil  at  than  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ?  How  many  do 
yet  stumble  and  fall  at  it !  —  Dr.  John  Owen  :  Divine  Origin  of  the 
Scriptures,  p.  132. 

Though  the  DiAinity  be  as  to  his  nature  one  in  essence,  yet  that  he 
is  three  in  hypostasis  we  believe,  not  from  any  thing  our  reason  dic- 
tates, but  from  the  word  of  God,  .and  therefore  by  an  act  of  pure 
faith ;  nor  discovered  to  the  world  by  any  liglit  of  nature,  but  super- 
naturally  revealed  in  time,  and  necessarily,  since  revealed,  to  be 
believed.  —  John  Evelyn:  The  True  Religion,  vol.  i.  p.  119. 

We  cannot  subscribe  to  the  opinion  of  such  of  our  theologuins  as 
have  endeavored  to  prove,  to  confirm,  and  by  tedious  similitudes  to 

illustrate,  this  mystery,  by  arguments  derived  from  nature The 

doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  we  confess,  is  a  mystery  which  man,  how 
distinguished  soever  for  wsdom  and  industry,  could  not  discover  by 
the  mere  consideration  of  himself  and  the  creatures.  —  Herman 
WlTSlus :  Dissertations  on  the  Jlpostles'  Creed,  Diss.  vi.  5,  15. 

32* 


378  THE  EXISTENCE  OF   A   TRIUNE  GOD 

"  God  "  is  the  name  of  a  being  absolutely  perfect ;  and  the  light  of 
nature  teaches  us  that  there  is  but  one  such  Sujn-eme  Being,  or  but 
one  God ;  but  nature  does  not  teach  us  that  there  are  three  divine 
persons,  who  are  this  one  God.  —  Dr.  Wm.  SHERLOCK :  Vindication 
of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  p.  216. 

Thus  much  I  confess,  that,  take  the  thing  [that  one  nature  may 
subsist  in  three  persons]  abstract  fi'om  divine  revelation,  there  is 
nothing  in  reason  able  to  prove  that  there  is  such  a  tiling ;  but,  &c.  — 
Dr.  Robert  South  :  Sermons,  vol.  iv.  p.  288. 

It  is  a  vain  attemjjt  to  go  about  to  prove  this  [the  doctrine  of  three 
persons  in  one  divine  essence]  by  reason ;  for  it  must  be  confessed, 
that  we  should  have  had  no  cause  to  have  thought  of  any  such  thing, 
if  the  Scriptures  had  not  revealed  it  to  us.  —  Bishop  Burnet  : 
Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Jlrtlclts,  Art.  I.  p.  42. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity .  . .  cannot  be  learned  from  the  light  of 
nature ;  for  then  we  should  certainly  be  able  to  behold  some  traces  or 
footsteps  thereof  in  the  works  of  creation  and  providence,  that  so  this 
might  be  understood  thereby,  as  well  as  the  power,  wisdom,  and 
goodness  of  God,  as  the  cause  is  known  by  its  eftect.  —  Dr.  Tiiomas 
Ridgley  :  Body  of  Divinity,  vol.  L  p.  230. 

Where  is  the  people  to  be  found,  where  the  individual,  who  learned 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  from  the  works  of  nature?  I  cannot 
suppose  it  would  ever  have  suggested  itself  to  a  single  mind,  had  it 
not  been  communic;ited,  probably  among  the  earUest  revelations  of 
God.  —  Robert  Hall  :  Letter  68 ;  m  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  274. 

But  we  liave  seen  there  is  no  evidence  that  ever  such  a  revelation  was 
made. 

If  a  man  were  to  hold  a  protracted  correspondence  by  letter  with  a 
stranger,  that  correspondence  would  reveal  feeling,  judgment,  reason, 
passion,  imagination,  and  all  the  other  natural  properties  of  the  man ; 
Iwcause  the  contents  of  his  person  will  both  yield,  and  dominate  in, 
the  matter  of  the  correspondence,  and  will  thus  appear  in  the  revela- 
tion made  by  it.  Now,  the  world  of  nature  is  to  God's  person  what 
the  letter  is  to  man ;  and  is  it  not  remarkable,  that  this  world  of  nature 
—  looked  upon,  studied,  and  lived  in,  for  four  thousand  years  —  had 
awakened  no  suspicion  or  thought  of  a  threefold  nature  in  its  Author 
(excepting  perlraps  in  the  questionable  instiince  of  the  Platonic  Trinity), 
and  has  not  even  to  this  day  ?  If  there  were  any  such  constitutional 
metaj)hysical  threeness  in  the  divine  nature,  is  it  credil)le  that  an 
exjjression  of  God,  so  vast  and  manilukl,  would  not  liave  made  even 


NOT   DISCERNIBLE   BY   THE  LIGHT  OF   NATURE.  379 

a  conspicuous  show  of  it?  I  state  no  such  conclusion.  ...  I  slate  a 
simple  flict,  for  which  I  am  not  responsible.  —  Horace  Busiineix  : 
Christ  in  Theology,  p.  166. 

With  all  the  temerity  of  speculation,  it  has  been  reserved,  we 
believe,  for  the  nineteenth  century  to  demonstrate  so  aljstruse  and 
incomprehensible  a  doctrine  as  that  of  the  Triune  nature  of  God.  It 
had  been  attempted  before  to  show,  that  such  a  tenet  was  not  incon- 
sistent with  reason  ;  and  so  fiir  as  it  is  practicable,  in  this  way,  to 
remove  the  difficulties  which  the  mind  encounters  in  assenting,  on 
mere  authority,  to  a  proposition  which  it  can  neither  deny  nor  com- 
prehend, the  effort  were  well  enough.  But  now  they  have  discovered 
th:it  such  a  condition  of  Deity  is  not  only  rational,  but  necessary ; 
absolutely  es^icntial  to  eternal  existence  and  the  work  of  creation  ;  and, 
if  their  premises  be  correct,  the  most  simple  and  obvious  thing 
imaginable.  The  argument  is  presented  by  a  recent  author  as  follows : 
It  first  assumes,  that  any  being,  even  the  Self-existent,  could  not  b« 
conscious  of  its  own  existence,  without  the  cognizance  of  some  object 
extraneous  to  itself;  and  if  not  capable  of  self-consciousness,  much 
less  of  creation,  or  any  other  act  of  Deity.  Hence  the  necessity  o*' 
the  eternal  existence  of  a  second  person,  —  of  a  contempLitor  and  a 
contemplated,  the  Father  and  the  Son.  It  next  assumes,  as  a  primary 
truth  or  an  unquestionable  premise,  that  the  necessary  two  could  not 
exist  in  harmony,  in  unity,  without  the  intervention  of  a  third  as  the 
medium  of  union ;  and  this  brings  us  to  the  idea  of  a  Trinitj',  abso- 
lutel}-,  and  in  the  nature  of  things,  necessary.  For  this  last  point,  — 
this  doctrine  of  a  spiritual  mordant,  —  the  intervention  of  sf  third 
substance,  in  order  to  efifect  a  union,  —  what  is  this  but  metaphysical 
chemistry  ?  And,  if  chemistry  is  pre-eminently  an  empirical  science, 
who  has  experimented  thus  far  .►*  And  did  he  conjure,  or  how  confine 
spirits  in  his  crucible  ?  What  were  the  tests  ?  and  where,  pray  show 
us,  the  Liboratory  of  this  modern  alchemist  ?  And  yet,  grave  doctors 
of  theology  gravely  announce  such  dogmas  for  the  edification  of  those 
who  count  it  wisdom  to  wonder  at  the  lofty  strides  which  reason  is 
taught  to  practise.  But  to  return  to  the  former  part  of  this  argument, 
—  that  self-consciousness  is  not  possible  without  an  apprehension  of 
something  besides  self.  Grant  tlie  truth  of  this  premise,  and  how 
do  we  know  it  ?  Who  shall  demonstrate  it  ?  Or  how  was  it  discov- 
ered ?  But  is  the  premise  true  ?  If  it  be,  we  have  only  to  say,  it  ia 
hugely  at  odds  with  common  experience ;  nor  will  it,  without  further 
light,  ap[)e;ir  to  all  to  consist  with  the  higher  efforts  of  reason  and 


SbO  A   TRIUNE   GOD   NOT   DISCERNIBLE  FROM  NATURE. 

metaphysical  analysis.  It  is  certiiinly  at  variance  with  the  first  princi* 
pies  of  the  Cartesian  philosophy.  For  that,  in  running  down  tlie 
celebrated  anti-climax,  —  the  dubilo,  cogito,sum,  —  arrives  at  a  convic- 
tion of  the  Me,  without  even  a  suspicion  of  the  jYot  Me ;  it  discovers 
and  survevs  the  whole  region  of  self-consciousness,  in  entire  ignorance 
if  that  be  not  the  universe.  Nay,  it  next  seriously  doubts  whether  it 
be  possible  "  by  means  of  thought,"  that  is,  as  we  understand,  by  any 
process  of  abstract  reasonuig,  to  overstep  this  boundary,  —  to  proceed 
fi-om  the  inner  to  the  outer,  to  advance  from  a  consciousness  of  self  to 
the  knowledge  of  a  second  reality.  What  is  this  but  a  house  divided 
against  itself  ?  And  let  it  fall.  —  Professor  H.  ]\I.  Jounson,  in 
Methodist  (Quarterly  Review  for  January,  1853 ;  fourth  series,  vol.  v. 
pp.  32-3. 

In  his  Introductorj-  Essay  to  Coleridge's  Works  (vok  i.  pp.  42-3),  Pro- 
fessor SiiEUD,  while  contending  I'or  what  he  calls  "  the  position  of  the 
Christian  theology,  that,  irrespective  of  His  manifestation  in  the  universe, 
ant' cedent  to  the  creation,  and  in  the  solitude  of  his  own  eternity,  God  is 
pef.sonally  self-conscious,  and  therefore  Triune,"  and  for  the  ratkmality  of 
th(  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  which,  he  says,  "  contains  the  only  adequate 
and  final  answer  to  the  standing  objection  of  Pantheism,  viz.,  that  an  Infinite 
Being  cannot  be  personal,  because  all  personal  sell-consciousness  implies 
limitation,"  confesses  at  the  same  time  that  "  such  abstruse  and  recondite 
speculation,"  namely,  as  to  the  necessity  of  a  Trinity  in  the  divine  nature, 
"  is  very  apt  to  run  into  "  "  the  pantheistic  conception  of  the  Deity  "  which 
it  is  intended  to  destroy. 

If  this  be  one  of  the  results  of  investigations  so  daring  and  so  irreve- 
rent,—  and  the  professor  himself  refers  as  an  example  to  "  the  Trinity  of 
Hegel,"  —  it  is  not  surprising  that  "  for  the  last  two  centuries,"  as  he  says 
(p.  41),  "  it  has  been  customary  among  English  and  American  theologians 
to  receive  the  doctrine  of  tlie  Trinity  purely  on  the  ground  of  its  being 
revealed  in  Scripture"  (or,  which  would  be  more  correct,  on  the  groand  of 
its  being  deducible  by  reason  from  a  combination  of  the  elements  of  various 
texts);  and  that  "attempts  to  establish  its  rationality  have,  in  the  main, 
been  dejjrecated." 

See  the  section  on  the  irrationality  of  the  dogma  of  a  Triune  God,  p.  317. 


In  the  last  chapter,  it  was  acknowledged  by  many  divines  belonging  to 
orthodox  churches,  that  a  Trinity  in  Unity,  or  a  Unity  in  Trinity,  is  not  a 
doctrine  of  express  revelation;  and  here  it  is  admitted,  that  the  same  doo 
trine  receives  no  countenance  whatever  from  the  light  of  reason  and  of 
nature.  It  will  now  be  shown,  from  similar  authorities,  that  the  unity  and 
self-existence  of  God  constitute  a  fundamental  principle  of  both  natural 
aud  revealed  religion. 


THE  DIVINE   DNITY   A  FUNDA5IENTAL  DOCTRINE.  381 


SECT.  n.  — THE  UNITY  OF  GOD  A  FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIILE  OF  BOTH 
NATURAL   AND   REVEALED   RELIGION. 


There  is  but  one  only  living  and  true  God,  who  is  infinite  in  being  and  perfection, 
a  most  pure  spirit ;  invisible;  without  body,  parts,  or  passions;  immutable,  immense, 
eternal,  incomprehensible,  almighty,  &c.  —  W£STiii>STEB  Divines. 


§  1.  Imi'ortance  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Divine  Unity. 

When  we  come  to  compare  events,  and  to  take  them  all  into  our 
minds  at  once ;  when  we  observe  that  there  is  an  unity  of  design  in 
them  all,  considered  collectively,  —  we  ascribe  them  all  ultimately  to 

one  great  Intelligence,  and  consider  him  a  person There  is  one 

thing  never  to  be  forgotten  for  a  moment ;  that  is,  the  unity  of  God. 
Scripture  and  reason  jointly  proclaim  there  is  but  one  God :  however 
the  proofs  of  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  may  seem  to 
interfere  with  this,  nothing  is  to  be  allowed  them  but  what  is  consistent 
with  it.  The  divine  nature,  or  substance,  can  therefore  be  but  "  onp 
substance ;  "  the  divine  power  can  be  but  "  one  power."  —  Dr.  John 
IIey  :  Lectures  in  Divinitij,  vol.  i.  p.  8 ;  ii.  pp.  250-1. 

The  denial  of  tliat  doctrine  [the  unity  of  God]  would  be  an  error 
of  still  more  alarming  magnitude  than  the  denial  of  the  distinction  of 
persons  in  the  Godhead There  may  be  some  diversity  of  opi- 
nion respecting  the  degree  of  certainty  with  which  the  doctrine  may 
be  learned  by  the  light  of  nature ;  but  in  the  doctrine  itself,  that  GoD 
IS  one,  as  a  doctrine  fully  certified  by  revelation,  and  according  with 
every  principle  of  enlightened  reason,  there  is  perfect  agi'eement.  — 
Dr.  IIalph  Wardlaw  :  Unitarianism  Incapable  of  Vindication, 
pp.  99,  301. 

If  he  [Dr.  Drummond]  had  taken  the  trouble  to  examine  authentic 
documents  of  churches  that  believe  that  there  are  three  persons  in  the 
Godhead,  or  the  writings  of  persons  who  are  held  in  any  esteem  by 
us,  he  would  have  found  that  the  unity  of  God  is  always  insisted  u])on 
as  the  very  foundation  of  all  religion.  —  James  Carlile  :  Jesus  Christ 
the  Great  God  our  Saviour,  p.  28. 

Among  all  the  different  explanations  [of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity] 
which  I  have  found,  I  have  not  met  with  any  one  which  denied,  or  at 
least  was  designed  to  deny,  the  unity'  of  God.  All  admit  this  to  be 
a  fundamentiil  principle :  all  acknowledge  that  it  is  designated  in  cha- 


382  THE  UNITY  OF   GOD 

racters  of  light  both- in  tlie  Jewish  and  Christian  revehtions,  and  that 
to  deny  it  would  be  the  grossest  absurdity  as  well  as  impiety.  —  MosES 
Stuart:  Letters  to  Channing ;  in  Miscellanies,  i^.  15. 

In  sui)port  of  his  assertion  that  all  Christians  admit  tlie  unity  of  God, 
Professor  Stuakt  cites  passages  from  creeds  of  different  denominations,  all 
of  which  expressly  mention  it  as  a  primary  object  of  belief.  The  fact  can 
not  be  denied,  and  we  rejoice  in  the  universality  of  the  acknowledgment; 
regarding  this  as  a  perpetual  and  a  decisive  testimony  to  the  truth  of  the 
doctrine,  and  iis  proving  it  to  be  so  consonant  to  the  highest  reason,  and  so 
clearly  revealed  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  to  forbid  the  possibility  that  any 
one,  professing  the  Christian  name,  should,  consciously  and  open!}*,  affirm 
the  existence  of  more  Gods  than  one.  But  it  is  a  fact  equally  undeniable, 
that  orthodox  writers  usually  speak  of"'  the  three  persons  in  the  Godhead" 
iu  language  which  involves  the  conception  of  three  distinct  and  separate 
Minds  or  Beings,  each  of  them  as  infinite,  or,  with  a  single  exception, — 
that  of  self-existence,  —  as  equal  in  all  divine  perfections;  and  therefore 
implies  a  belief  in  three  Gods,  united  by  the  harmony,  and  not  by  the  iden- 
tity, of  their  wills,  plans,  and  operations.  Unless,  indeed,  Trinitarianism 
belies  her  own  professions  by  frittering  away  the  three  persons,  as  she 
sometimes  does,  into  three  relations  or  nominal  distinctions  of  the  Absolute 
One,  she  must,  from  the  very  nature  of  her  doctrine,  speak  of  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost  as  three  equal  or  unequal  Diviuities;  three  Supreme  Beings , 
or  only  one  Supreme  and  two  inferior  Gods. 

We  do  not  charge  any  of  our  orthodox  brethren  with  impiety,  or  with  a 
clear  and  distinct  consciousness  of  belief  in  an  unqualified  Tritheism;  for 
there  is  not  one  of  them  who  would  expressly  assert  the  existence  of  three 
Gods.  But  that  we  have  done  no  injustice  to  the  mode  in  which  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  is  commonly  understood  and  explained,  is  evident  from 
the  extracts  made  in  pp.  2b0-3  and  289-91,  to  which  might  have  been  added 
a  host  of  others;  and  from  the  complaints  uttered  on  tliis  subject  by  Trini- 
tarians themselves,  —  as  by  South,  Coleridge,  Stuakt,  Busiinell,  &c.: 
see  pp.  284-9,  292-5. 

We  take,  as  a  first  point,  to  be  held  immovably,  the  strict  jjersonal 

unity  of  God,  —  one  mind,  will,  consciousness If  our  feeling  is, 

at  any  time,  confused  by  these  persons  or  impersonations,  we  are  to 
have  it  for  a  fixed,  first  truth,  that  God  is,  in  the  most  perfect  and 
rigid  sense,  one  Being,  —  a  pure  intelligence,  undivided,  indivisible, 
and  infinite ;  and  that  whatever  may  be  true  of  the  Fatlicr,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  it  certiinly  is  not  true  that  they  are  three  distinct  con- 
sciousnesses, wills,  and  understandings.  —  !)&.  lioiiACK  liuSHNKLL  : 
God  in  Christ,  pj).  13G,  17G-7. 

The  first  portion  of  this  extract  wo  think  perfectly  sustained  both  by 
reason  aud  revelatioui  but,  in  reference  to  the  latter,  we  do  uot  hesitate  to 


A  FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLE  OF  TRUE  RELIGION.  383 

Bay,  in  opposition  to  the  eloquent  and  highly  gifted  writer,  that,  if  the  Bible 
be  interpreted  as  any  other  book  whicli  is  designed  for  the  comprehension 
of  men,  —  tliat  is,  interpreted  in  conformity  with  the  universal  usage  of 
language,  —  no  doctrine  can  be  found  to  pervade  the  Scriptures  more  plainly 
than  this:  that  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the  Sender  and  the  Sent,  the  Lord 
and  his  Christ,  the  Almighty  One  prayed  to  and  the  dependent  devout 
Petitioner,  were  and  are  distinct,  separate  intelligences,  having  each  hi3 
own  consciousness,  will,  and  un<ierstanding,  though  morally  united,  —  har- 
monious in  affection,  plan,  and  purpose;  and  it  is  because  they  are  thus 
characterized  in  the  New  Testament,  because  they  are  clearly  spoken  of  as 
distinct  persons,  agents,  or  beings,  that  we  deem  it  inimical  to  the  truth  of 
revelation  to  represent  these  two  as  one  and  the  same  God.  Dr.  Bushnell, 
however,  seems  to  us  to  be  perfectly  justified  in  intimating,  that,  as  it  is  a 
first  truth  that  God  is,  in  the  most  rigid  sense,  one  Being,  it  cannot  be  true 
that  three  distinct  persons  or  intelligences,  having  separate  consciousnesses 
and  wills,  —  in  other  words,  thi-ee  beings,  —  are  only  one  God. 

The  first  and  most  prominent  thought,  connected  witl  the  great 
word  "  God,"  is,  that  he  possesses  existence  which  is  underived  and 
eternal.  This  is  what  natural  and  revealed  religion  mean  by  God. 
The  idea  of  an  eternal,  independent  Being  is  the  most  exalted  con- 
ception the  human  mind  Ciin  receive  of  the  all-perfect  Deity.  He  is 
one  who  exists  prior  to  every  other  being,  and  derives  his  existence 
from  no  other.  He  is  self-existent,  and  has  the  principle  of  life  in 
himself.  —  Dr.  G.ardiner  Spring  :  77ic  Gionj  of  Christ,  vol.  L 
page  39. 

Dr.  Spring's  sentiments  will,  we  suppose,  recommend  themselves  to  the 
mind  of  every  intelligent  man;  and  yet  they  will  be  found  perfectly  incom- 
patible with  the  oi-thodox  dogma  of  three  co-equal  persons  in  one  God.  If, 
as  the  creeds  assert,  and  as  probably  most  Trinitarians  believe,  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  derived  their  existence  and  their  attributes  from  the  Father, 
—  no  matter  in  what  way  this  derivation  may  be  conceived  and  expressed, 
whether  by  the  notion  of  Sonship  or  Spiration,  of  being  begotten  or  having 
proceeded,  in  time  or  from  eternity,  by  the  will  of  the  Father  or  by  the  con- 
templation of  his  own  perfections,  —  the  conclusion  will  irresistibly  follow, 
that  the  two  dependent  persons  are  not,  and  cannot  be,  each  God  in  the 
highest,  the  absolute,  sense  of  the  term,  —  cannot  either  be  equal  to  Him, 
the  seif-existent  Father,  from  whom  they  had  their  origin,  or  be  one  and  the 
very  same  Being  as  that  underived  Cause  of  all  things.  If,  according  to 
anotlier  view  of  the  Trinitarian  mystery,  the  three  divine  persons  —  Father, 
Son,  md  Holy  Ghost  —  are  each  a  self-existent  Being,  and  therefore  each 
God  in  the  most  exalted  sense  of  the  word,  they  must,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  be  three  Supreme  and  Infinite  Gods  ;  which  is  an  absurdity, 
and  inconsistent  alike  with  the  dictates  of  reason,  and  with  the  whole  tenor 
of  the  Patriarchal,  the  Jewish,  and  the  Christian  revelations. 


384  TnE  UNITY   OF   GOD 

^  2.  TiiK  Unity  of  God  pkoved  by  Reason,  and  manifested  in  thb 
Works  ok  Creation. 

An  evident  and  most  natural  consequence  of  this  universal  and 
necessary  idea  of  a  God,  is  his  unity.  All  that  mention  the  term 
"  God "  intend  to  convey  by  it  the  idea  of  the  first,  most  exalted, 
necessarily  existent,  and  infinitely  perfect  Being ;  and  it  is  plain  there 
Ciin  be  but  one  13eing  endued  with  all  these  perfections.  — Archbishop 
Leighton:  Theological  Lectures,  Lect.  7;  in  Works,  p.  571. 

God  is  a  being  absolutely  perfect,  unmade,  or  self-originated,  and 
necessarily  existing. ...  It  evidently  appears  that  there  can  be  but  one 
such  Being,  and  that  unity,  oneliness,  or  singularity,  is  essential  to  it; 
forasmuch  as  there  cannot  ])ossibly  be  more  than  one  sujjreme,  more 
than  one  omnipotent,  or  infinitely  powerful  Being,  and  more  tlian  one 
Cause  of  all  things  besides  itself.  —  Dr.  R.  Cudwortu  :  Intellectual 
St/stem  of  the  Universe,  vol.  i.  p.  282. 

It  hath  been  alleged  by  divines  and  philosophers,  with  great  judg- 
ment, tliat  indeed  the  existence  of  a  God  is  manifested  to  mankind  in 
the  high  wisdom  and  the  admirable  contrivance  that  is  seen  in  the 
whole  and  jwrts  of  the  world.  .  .  .  There  are  a  thous;ind  significitions, 
in  the  works  of  creation,  that  God  is ;  but  not  the  least  intimation  by 
them,  or  any  other  ways,  that  there  are  more  Gods  than  one.  Seeing, 
therefore,  the  works  of  God  were  made  to  display  his  perfections  to 
the  rational  part  of  the  creation,  we  rightly  infer,  that,  because  those 
works  discover  to  us  only  this,  that  there  is  a  God,  we  ought  to  believe 
no  fortlier  than  is  declared  to  us,  namely,  that  a  God,  or  one  God,  there 
certainly  is.  .  .  .  Of  one  such  Mind  or  Spirit,  the  works  of  creation,  so 
full  of  beauty,  order,  and  design,  are  a  clear  demonstration ;  but  they 
show  us  not  the  least  footstej)s  or  track  of  more  such  sjnrits  and 
minds.  —  Dr.  Robert  South  :  The  Judgment  of  a  Disinterested 
Person,  pj).  50-1. 

The  unity  of  the  Godhead  is  a  truth  enskimped  on  the  very  nature 
of  man,  and  may  be  as  jjlainly  proved  from  the  hght  of  nature  as 
that  there  is  a  God.  There  can  be  no  more  than  one  Being  who 
is  without  Ijeginning,  and  who  gave  being  to  all  other  things :  which 
ajjpears  from  the  very  nature  of  the  thing ;  for  if  there  are  more  Gods, 
tlicn  they  must  derive  their  being  from  him,  and  then  they  are  a  part 
of  his  creation,  and  consequently  not  Gods,  for  God  and  the  creature 
are  infinitely  oj)j)osed  to  eacii  other ;  and  since  there  is  but  one  inde- 
pendent Being,  who  is  in  and  of  liimself,  and  derives  his  perfections 


PROVED  FROM  THE  LIGHT  OF  NATURE.  885 

fir'in  no  other,  therefore  there  can  be  but  one  God.  .  .  Infinite  perfec- 
tion being  implied  in  the  idea  of  a  God,  it  is  certain  that  it  cannot 
belong  to  more  than  one ;  for,  as  it  implies  that  this  perfection  is 
boundless,  so  it  denotes  that  he  sets  bounds  to  the  perfections  of  all 
others :  therefore,  if  there  are  more  Gods  than  one,  their  perfections 
must  be  limited,  and  consequently  that  which  is  not  infinite  is  not 
God.  And  as  infinite  perfection  implies  in  it  all  perfection,  so  it 
cannot  be  divided  among  many ;  for  then  no  being,  that  has  only  a 
part  thereof,  could  be  said  to  be  thus  perfect :  therefore,  since  there  is 
but  one  that  is  so,  it  follows  that  there  is  no  other  God  besides  him.  .  . 
There  is  but  one  Being  who  is,  as  God  is  often  said  to  be,  the  best  and 
the  greatest :  therefore,  if  there  were  moi'e  Gods  than  one,  either  one 
must  be  supj)osed  to  be  more  excellent  than  another,  or  both  equally 
excellent.  If  we  suj)j)ose  the  former  of  these,  then  he  who  is  not  the 
most  excellent  is  not  God ;  and  if  the  latter,  that  their  excellences  are 
equal,  then  infinite  perfection  would  be  divided ;  which  is  contrary  to 
the  idea  thereof,  as  well  as  to  wliat  is  expressly  said  by  God,  "  To 
whom  will  ye  liken  me,  or  shall  I  be  equal  ?  saith  the  Holy  One,"  Isa. 
xl.  25.  —  Abridged  from  Dr.  Thomas  Hidgley  :  Body  of  Divinity, 
vol.  i.  pp.  194-6. 

If  there  were  any  other  self-existent  Being  besides  that  whose 
exisience  we  have  demonstrated,  he  must  in  all  respects  be  equal  to 
him ;  for  otherwise  it  would  be  natural  to  suppose  some  derivation  or 
dependency,  inconsistent  with  self-existence,  and  consequently  with  the 
hypothesis.  To  suppose  such  another  Being  is  to  limit  the  omnipo- 
tence of  God ;  for  ...  it  seems  he  would  be  unable  to  act  without  his 
consent,  at  least  tacitly  imphed ;  and,  if  their  volitions  should  in  any 
respect  contradict  each  other,  which  in  things  indifferent  they  might 
at  least  very  possibly  do,  the  one  would  be  a  restraint  upon  the  other, 
and  so  neither  would  be  omnipotent.  .  .  .  The  unity  of  design,  which 
seems  to  prevail  in  the  works  of  nature,  makes  it  reasonable  to  believe 
it  had  but  one  author,  and  that  he  operated  in  an  uncontrolled  maimer. 
Tliere  is  no  reason  from  the  light  of  nature  to  conclude  that  there  are 
any  more  Deities  than  one,  or  indeed  to  imagine  there  are  any  more; 
since  one  almighty  and  all-wise  Being  can  do  as  much  as  a  thousand 
such  beings  am  do.  —  Dr.  Philip  Doddridge  :  Course  of  Lectures, 
part  ii.  prop,  xxxix.,  or  vol.  i.  pp.  132-3. 

As  authorities  for  these  sentiments,  the  lecturer  or  his  editors  refer  to 
WiLKiNs,  Bishop  BuK.NET.  Le  Clekc,  JoiiN  HowE  and  Grotius,  as  well 
as  to  several  eminent  Unitarians. 

33 


386  THE   OXITY   OF   GOD 

So  far  as  I  know,  nil  who  have  acknowledged  one  infinite  God  hav* 
regarded  the  acknowledgment  of  more  as  an  absurdity.  In  tliis  senti- 
ment have  concurred  the  Patriarchs,  Jews,  Christians,  Mohammedxxus, 
and  all  those  modem  infidels  who  have  not  denied  the  existence  of 
such  a  God.  These  classes  of  men  have,  with  one  voice,  renounced 
the  idea  of  more  than  one  such  God.  Such  a  geneml  accordince,  ia 
men  differing  in  other  respects  so  widely,  clearly  indicates  that  the 
admission  of  one  infinite  God  l)rings  with  it,  to  the  human  mind, 
serious  difficulties  against  the  admission  of  more ;  and  plainly  implies 
that  more  cannot  be  admitted  by  the  mind,  without  violence  done  to 
the  understanduig.  .  .  .  Although  the  proofs  of  the  existence  of  God 
are  complete,  yet  there  is  no  proof  of  the  existence  of  more  than  one 
God.  The  argument  for  the  being  of  God,  which  I  mentioned  as 
exhibited  in  the  happiest  manner  by  Mr.  Locke,  i)roves  unansweral)ly 
the  being  of  one  eternal,  self-existent  Cause,  possessed  of  sufficient 
intelligence  to  contrive,  and  sufficient  power  to  create,  the  universe  of 
worlds,  and  all  which  it  contiiins.  The  existence  of  one  such  Cause 
completely  removes  from  the  mind  every  difficulty,  and  satisliictorily 

-accounts  for  every  thing. The  unity  of  design  and  agency  in 

creiition  and  providence  furnishes  another  argument  in  proof  of  the 
existence  of  but  one  God.  So  for  as  we  are  able  to  underst;xnd  the 
works  of  creation  and  providence,  we  discern  a  general  simplicity  and 
harmony  in  the  natiu'e  and  operations  of  all  things.  Amid  the  im- 
mense compliciition  which  surrounds  us,  we  perceive  one  set  of  laws, 
in  accordance  with  which  all  things  proceed  in  their  course.  The 
same  Ciiuses  produce  uniformly  the  same  eft'ects  in  every  place  and 
period.  Vegetables  spring  from  the  same  seed,  germinate  by  the  siime 
means,  assume  the  same  form,  sust^iin  the  same  qualities,  exist  through 
the  same  duration,  and  come  to  the  s;mie  end.  Animals  also  are 
born  in  one  manner,  and  exhibit  the  same  life,  powers,  and  tendencies. 
Man  has  one  origin,  form,  life,  system  of  faculties,  character,  and 
termination.  All  things  in  this  world  are,  in  one  regular  manner, 
made  sul)servient  to  his  use  and  hajjpiness;  and  are  plainly  fitted  by 
one  design,  and  conducted  by  one  agency,  to  this  end.  1  )ay  and  night 
uniformly  return  by  a  single  jniwer,  and  with  exact  ri'gularity.  With 
the  same  regukrity  and  simplicity,  the  seasons  pursue  their  circuit. 
The  sun  shines,  illuminates,  warms,  and  moves  the  planets  by  a  single 
law,  and  with  exact  uniformity.  By  one  kiw,  the  pLmets  keep  tlieil 
orbits  and  perform  their  revolutions.  The  face  of  the  heavens  is  but 
one,  and  the  oldest  sphere  which  is  known  presents  to  our  view  the 


PROVED  FROM  THE  LIGHT  OF  NATURE.  387 

same  constellations  which  we  now  behold  in  the  nightly  firmament. 
Thus  all  things,  so  far  as  our  knowledge  extends,  present  to  our  view 
a  single  design,  regularly  executed  by  a  single  agency.  But  unity  of 
design  is  a  proof  of  one  designer ;  and  unity  of  agency,  of  one  agent.  — 
Dr.  Timothy  Dwight  :  Sermon  4 ;  in  Theology  Explained,  vol.  L 
pp.  115-16,  119. 

To  prove  the  unity  of  this  great  Being,  in  opposition  to  a  plurality 
of  Gods,  it  is  not  necessary  to  have  recourse  to  metaphysical  abstrac- 
tions. It  is  sufficient  to  observe,  that  the  notion  of  more  than  one 
Author  of  nature  is  inconsistent  with  that  harmony  of  design  which 
pervades  her  works ;  that  it  explains  no  appearances,  is  supported  by 
no  evidence,  and  serves  no  pm-pose  but  to  embarrass  and  perplex  our 

conceptions There  is  but  one  such  Being.     To  affirm  there 

is  more  than  one,  without  reason,  must,  by  the  very  terms,  be  unrea- 
sonable. But  no  shadow  of  reason  can  be  assigned  for  believing  in  a 
plurality  of  such  beings ;  because  the  supposition  of  one  accounts  for 
all  that  we  see,  as  well,  and  even  much  better  than  the  supposition  of 
more.  That  there  must  be  one  underived,  self-existent,  eternal,  and 
intelligent  Cause,  must  of  necessity  be  allowed,  in  order  to  account  for 
what  we  know  to  exist ;  but  no  reason  can  be  assigned  for  supjjosing 
more.  It  is  with  the  utmost  jjropriety  established  as  an  axiom,  that 
we  ought  in  no  case  to  assign  more  causes  than  will  account  for  the 
effects.  —  lloBERT  Hall  :  Modern  hifidelity  considered,  and  JVotes 
of  Sermons :  in  Worlcs,  vol.  i.  p.  26;  iii.  pp.  14,  15. 

It  has  been  urged  that  unity  of  ])lan  [in  the  laws  of  jjhysical  action] 
might  result  from  the  co-operation  of  several  minds,  powers,  or  agen- 
cies. But  to  suppose  many  causes,  when  one  will  suffice,  is  clearly 
unphilosophical ;  and,  besides  this,  the  objection,  however  plausible 
when  stated  merely  in  an  abstract  form,  will  vanish  the  moment  we 
reflect  on  the  actual  case  of  the  material  creation.  When  we  consider 
. . .  the  immense  multiplicity  of  jihysical  arrangements,  all  so  admirably 
harmonizing  together;  the  infinite  combination  of  adjustments,  each 
arranged  in  exact  relation  to  the  other,  as  well  as  complete  within 
it-self,  —  we  cannot  but  feel  overwhelmed  with  the  conviction,  that  to 
One  Omniscient  Mind  alone  can  be  correctly  attributed  such  infinite 
forethought,  and  such  boundless  comprehensiveness  of  arrangement.  — 
Baden  Powell  :  The  Connection  of  JVdtural  and  Divine  Truth, 
pp.  188-9. 

Stuart  (in  Miscelliinies,  p.  42)  well  remarks,  tliat  the  proposition,  "  God 
is  one  "  means  "  that  there  is  in  him  only  one  intelligent  agent." 


388  THE  UNITY   OF   GOD 

§  3.   TiiK  Umty  of  God  revealed  in  the  Scriitures  of  thk 
Oi.u  AND  THE  New  Testament. 

"  Unto  thee  it  was  sliowcd,"  ..."  that  thou  mightest  know  that  the 
Lord  he  is  God :  there  is  none  else  beside  him,"  Dent.  iv.  35.  And, 
as  the  law,  so  the  gospel  teaclicth  ns  the  same :  "  AVe  know  that  an 
idol  is  nothing  in  the  world,  and  that  there  is  none  other  God  but 
one,"  1  Cor.  viii.  4.  This  unity  of  the  Godhead  will  etxsily  appear  as 
necessary  as  the  existence;  so  that  it  must  be  as  impossible  there 
should  be  more  Gods  than  one,  as  that  there  should  be  none.  .  .  .  The 
nature  of  God  consists  in  this,  that  he  is  the  prime  and  original  cause 
of  all  tilings,  as  an  independent  Being  upon  M'hich  all  things  else 
depend,  and  likewise  the  ultimate  end  or  final  cause  of  all :  but  in  this 
sense  two  prime  causes  are  unimaginable ;  and  for  all  things  to  de])end 
of  one,  and  to  be  more  independent  Beings  than  one,  is  a  clear  con- 
tradiction. This  priraity  God  requires  to  be  attributed  to  himself: 
**  Hearken  unto  me,  O  Jacob,  and  Israel  my  called !  I  am  he ;  I  am 
the  first,  I  also  am  the  last,"  Isa.  xlviii.  12.  And  from  this  primity 
he  challengeth  his  unity  :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  King  of  Israel, 
and  his  llodcenier  the  I-ord  of  hosts,  I  am  the  first,  and  I  am  the 
last ;  and  beside  me  there  is  no  God,"  Isa.  xliv.  6.  .  .  .  If  there  were 
more  Gods  than  one,  then  were  not  all  penections  in  one.  ..."  He 
doth  according  to  his  will  in  the  army  of  heaven,  and  among  the 
inhal)itiuits  of  the  earth  "  (Dan.  iv.  35),  said  Nebuchadnezzar  out  of 
his  experience ;  and  St.  Paul  expresscth  him  as  "  worketh  all  things 
after  the  counsel  of  liis  own  will."  If,  then,  there  were  more  supreme 
Governors  of  the  world  than  one,  each  of  them  absolute  and  free,  they 
might  have  contrary  determinations  concerning  the  same  thing;  than 
which  nothing  Ciui  be  more  prejudicial  unto  government.  God  is  a 
God  of  order,  not  confusion ;  and  therefore  of  unity,  not  admitting 
multi])lication.  If  it  be  better  that  the  universe  should  be  governed 
by  one  than  many,  we  may  be  assured  that  it  is  so;  because  nothing 
must  be  conceived  of  God  but  what  is  best.  .  .  .  Now,  God  is  not  only 
one,  but  hath  a  unity  peculiar  to  himself,  by  which  he  is  the  only  God ; 
and  that  not  only  by  way  of  actuality,  but  also  of  possibility.  Every 
individual  man  is  one,  but  so  as  there  is  a  second  and  a  thii'd;  and 
consequently  every  one  is  part  of  a  number,  and  concurring  to  a  mul- 
titude; .  .  .  whereas  in  the  divine  nature  there  is  an  intrinsical  and 
essential  singularity,  because  no  other  being  can  have  any  existence  but 
from  that;  and  what.soevcr  essence  hath  its  existence  from  another  is 


REVEALED  IN   THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.  389 

not  God.  "  I  am  the  Loi-d,"  saith  he,  "  and  there  is  none  else ;  there 
is  no  God  besides  me :  that  they  may  know,  from  the  rising  of  the 
s  m  and  from  the  west,  that  there  is  none  besides  me.  I  am  the  Lord, 
and  there  is  none  else,"  Isa.  xlv.  5,  6.  Deut.  iv.  35,  and  xxxii.  39. 
Ps.  xviii.  31.  He  who  hath  infinite  knowledge  knoweth  no  other  God 
beside  himself.  "  Is  there  a  God  besides  me  ?  yea,  there  is  no  God ;  I 
know  not  any,"  Isa.  xlv.  18,  21,  22,  and  xHv.  8.  And  we  who  believe 
in  him,  and  desire  to  enjoy  him,  need  for  that  end  to  know  no  other 
God  but  him.  "  For  this  is  hfe  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee 
the  only  true  God  "  (John  xvii.  3),  —  as  certainly  one  as  God.  .  .  . 
If  we  should  apprehend  more  Gods  than  one,  I  know  not  what  could 
determine  us,  in  any  inst;mt,  to  the  actual  adoration  of  any  one ;  for 
•where  no  difference  doth  appear  (as,  if  there  were  many,  and  all  by 
nature  Gods,  there  could  be  none),  what  inclination  could  we  have, 
what  reason  could  we  imagine,  to  prefer  or  elect  any  one  before  the 
rest  for  the  ol)ject  of  our  devotions  ?  .  .  .  Without  this  acknowledg- 
ment [of  the  unity  of  God],  we  cannot  give  unto  God  the  things  which 
are  God's ;  it  bemg  part  of  the  worship  and  honor  due  unto  God  to 
accept  of  no  compartner  Avith  him.  When  the  law  was  given,  in  the 
observance  whereof  the  religion  of  the  Israelites  consisted,  the  first 
precept  was  this  prohil)ition,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  Gods  before 
me  "  (Exod.  xx.  3) ;  and  whosoever  violateth  this,  denieth  the  foun- 
dation on  which  all  the  rest  depend.  .  .  This  is  the  true  reason  of  that 
strict  precept  by  which  all  are  commanded  to  give  divine  worship  to 
God  only :  "  Thou  shalt  AvorshijJ  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only 
shalt  thou  serve,"  Matt.  iv.  10.  .  .  .  Upon  this  foundation  the  whole 
heart  of  man  is  entirely  requu-ed  of  him,  and  engaged  to  him  :  "  Hear, 
O  Israel !  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  God :  therefore  thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all 
thy  might,"  Deut.  vi.  4,  5.  ...  If  there  were  more  Gods  than  one,  our 
love  must  necessarily  be  terminated  unto  more  than  one,  and  conse- 
quently divided  between  them.  —  Bishop  Pk\rson  :  Exposition  of 
the  dreed,  Art.  I.  pp.  32-5. 

There  is  one  God,  that  is,  but  one ;  as  St.  Paul  elsewhere  expresseth 
it,  "  There  is  none  other  God  but  one,"  1  Cor.  viii.  4.  And  Moses 
lays  this  as  the  foundation  of  the  natural  law,  as  well  as  of  the  Jewish 
religion,  "  The  Lord  he  is  one  God,  and  there  is  none  besides  him  " 
(Deut  iv.  35);  that  is,  besides  Jehovah,  whom  the  people  of  Israel  did 
worship  as  the  only  true  God.  And  this  the  prophet  Isaiiih  perpetually 
declai'es,  m  oj)position  to  the  polytheism  and  variety  of  gods  among 

33» 


390  THE   UNITY   OF   GOD 

the  heathen,  "  I  am  the  first  and  I  am  the  last ;  and  besides  me  tliere 
is  no  Gpd,"  Isa.  xliv.  6.  And  ag-ain,  ver.  8,  "  Is  there  any  God  besidea 
me  ?  There  is  no  God  ;  I  know  not  any :  "  He  who  hath  an  infinite 
knowledge,  and  knows  all  things,  knows  no  other  God.  And  our 
blessed  Sauour  makes  this  the  fundamentiil  article  of  all  religion,  and 
the  knowledge  of  it  necessar)'  to  every  man's  salvation.  "  This,"  says 
he,  "  is  life  eternal,  to  know  thee  the  only  true  God."  —  Arcubisuop 
TiLLOTSOX :  Sermon  48 ;  in  fVorks,  vol.  iii.  pp.  279-80. 

The  unity  of  the  Godhead  is  a  truth  not  barely  founded  on  a  few 
places  of  Scripture  that  expressly  assert  it,  but  it  may  i)e  deduced  from 
every  part  thereof.  —  Dr.  Thomas  Ridgley  :  Body  of  Divinity, 
vol.  i.  p.  194. 

That  there  is  one  Supreme  God,  the  Scriptures  uniformly  teach. . . . 
No  one  at  all  familiar  with  the  books  of  the  Old  Testiiment  can  be 
ignorant,  that  Moses  and  the  other  prophets  proposed  it  as  the  end  of 
all  their  ministrations  to  impress  indelibly  upon  the  hearts  and  under- 
standings of  the  Jews  a  proper  conception  of  the  one  true  God, 
Jehovah ;  and  that  the  same  essential  truth,  which  lay  at  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Jewish  faith,  was  fully  sanctioned  and  confirmed  by  Christ 
and  his  ajjostles,  is  evident  as  well  irom  their  acknowledging,  in  general 
terms,  the  divine  leg-ation  of  the  ancient  propiiets,  as  from  their  more 
explicit  declarations  on  this  very  point  in  various  ])arts  of  the  New 
Testament.  —  J.  F,  Flati'  :  Dissertation  on  tlie  Deity  of  Christ ;  in 
Biblical  Repertory,  new  series,  vol.  i.  pp.  35-6. 

The  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God  is  taught  in  the  most  clear  and 
explicit  manner  in  the  Old  and  New  Testixments.  "  Jehovah  is  God, 
Jeliovah  is  oxi:,"  i.e.  one  God,  Deut.  vi.  4  ;  iv.  3o,  39 ;  xxxii.  39.  "  I 
am  God,  and  there  is  none  else,"  Is;i.  xlv.  o,  21,  22;  Ps.  Ixxxvi.  10. 
The  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God  was  at  the  foundation  of  the  whole 
Mosaic  religion  and  institute,  and  also  of  the  Christian  religion.  "And 
this  is  eternal  life,  that  they  might  know  thee,"  rdv  fiovov  iihiOivbv  dedv 
["  the  only  true  God  "],  John  xvii.  3.  'U/uv  eIq  debg  6  nar^p,  "  We 
believe  in  one  God,"  1  Cor.  viii.  4-6 ;  James  ii.  19,  seq.  —  Dr.  G.  C. 
Knapp  :  Christian  Theology,  sect.  xvi.  I. 

The  theology  of  Judaism  was  j)ure,  sublime,  and  devotional.  The 
belief  of  one  su])reme,  self-existent,  and  all-j)erfect  Being,  the  Creator 
of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  was  the  basis  of  all  the  religious  institu- 
tions of  the  Israelities ;  the  sole  object  of  their  hopes,  fears,  and 
worship.  ...  It  was  the  avowed  design  of  that  law  [the  law  of  Moses] 
to  teach  the  Israelites  that  there  is  only  one  God,  and  to  secure  them 


eeveaij;d  in  the  holy  scriptures."  391 

from   that  polytheism  and  idolatry  which  prevailed  among  all  the 

nations  round  about  them Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  .  .  . 

retain  all  that  is  excellent  in  the  Old-Testament  revelation ;  for  Christ 
came  not  to  destroy  the  law  and  the  prophets,  but  to  fulfil  them,  and 
to  carry  the  scheme  of  religion  there  laid  down  to  a  still  higher  degree 
of  excellency.  —  T.  Hartsvell  Horxe  :  Introduction  to  the  Critical 
Study  of  the  Holy  Scriptxires,  vol.  i.  pp.  143,  149. 

If  we  follow  the  guidnnce  of  Scripture,  we  are  to  conceive  of  God 
as  one ;  one  Being  or  existence ;  one  Mind,  creating,  directing,  con- 
trolling, all  things ;  possessing  the  faculties  and  attributes  essential  to 
all  menkil  or  spiritual  existence,  as  consciousness,  understanding,  will, 
affections,  &c.  —  Joseph  Haven,  Jun.,  in  JVew  Englander  for  Feb. 
1850;  vol.  viii.  (new  series,  vol.  ii.)  p.  17. 

In  the  Old  Testament,  God  is  distinctly  announced  as  the  one  liAing 
and  true  God. . . .  The  unity  of  God  is  made  especially  prominent,  and 
contrasted  strongly  and  variously  with  the  idolatrous  notions  prevalent 
among  men.  It  is  a  pure  system  of  Theism,  allowing  not  the  shghtest 
departure  from  the  strict  idea  of  one  God  only,  sujireme  on  earth  and 
<ji  heaven,  and  alone  entitled  to  the  homage  and  adoration  of  men. 
God  is  distinctly  an  individual,  not  an  abstract  power.  —  Dr.  Seth 
Sweetser,  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  January,  1854;  vol.  xi.  p.  88. 


These  extnicts  are  given,  not  as  implying  that  any  Trinitarian  profess- 
edly believes  in  a  plurality  of  Gods,  but  as  pointing  out  tlie  immense  weight 
of  evidence  in  favor  of  the  Divine  Unity  over  that  for  a  Trinity  of  persons  ia 
the  Godhead,  —  evidence  so  strong  and  irresistible  that  scarcely  any  Chris- 
tian can  deny  the  existence  of  only  one  underived,  self-existent,  and  eternal 
Cause.  It  is,  however,  for  the  believer  in  the  perfect  equality  of  three 
divine  persons  seriously  to  consider,  whether  this  doctrine  does  not  infringe 
on  the  unity  of  God;  and  for  him  who  advocates  the  derivation  of  the  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit  from  the  Father  to  reflect,  whether  this  notion  is  not  entirely 
incompatible  with  that  of  eternity  and  self-existence,  which  are  acknow- 
ledged attributes  of  Deity.  To  adopt  the  language  of  Moses  Stuart  (in 
Biblical  Repository  for  July,  1835,  vol.  vi.  p.  113),  we  would  ask,  "  To  what 
good  purpose  can  it  be  that  Christians  strenuously  assert  their  belief  in  the 
unity  of  God,  while  they  contiime  to  make  representatious  which,  when 
strictly  examined,  prove  to  be  altogether  inconsistent,  in  a  theoretical  point 
of  view,  with  numerical  unity  of  substance  and  essential  attributes?  I  am 
filled  with  unwelcome  apprehension,  whenever  I  perceive  that  a  far  greater 
proportion  of  zeal  is  maintained,  in  any  metaphysical  school  of  theology, 
for  the  personality  than  for  the  unity  of  the  Godhead, — just  as  though 
'Hear,  0  Israel!  .Jehovah  our  God  is  oxK  Jkhovam,'  were  expunged  from 
the  Sacred  liecord,  or  put  in  the  background !     This  should  not  be  so." 


892  THE  UNIVERSAL  FATIIEE 


BECT.   III.  —  GOD,   THE   FATHER,   THE   ONLY   PEKSON   OR   BELNO   WHO 
IS   UNDERI\'ED  OR   SELF-EXISTEXT  A>D   SUPREME. 

How  iinmeaFurably  exalted  must  the  Father  be  above  the  Son  and  Spirit,  if  he  if 
the  ground  or  cause  of  their  being,  the  fom  ct  priiicipiuin  of  Godhead  itself  I  —  Mo8£l 
Stuart. 

By  the  gift  of  eternal  generation,  Christ  hath  received  of  the  Father 
one  and  in  number  the  self-same  substance,  ■which  the  Father  hath  of 
himself  uureceived  from  any  other.  For  every  beginning  is  a  Father 
unto  that  which  cometh  of  it,  and  every  offspring  is  a  Son  unto  that 
out  of  which  it  groweth.  Seeing,  thereiore,  tlie  Father  alone  is 
originally  that  Deity  which  Christ  originally  is  not  (for  Christ  is  God 
by  being  of  God,  Light  by  issuing  out  of  Light),  it  followeth  hereupon, 
that  whatsoever  Christ  hath  common  unto  him  witli  his  heavenly 
Father,  the  same  of  necessity  must  be  given  him,  but  naturally  and 
eternally  given.  —  lliciiARD  Hooker  :  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  v. 
chap.  liv.  2 ;  in  J  forks,  vol.  i.  pp.  395-6. 

According  to  the  second  section  of  tlie  present  chapter  (pp.  381-91), 
nature  and  revelation  procliiiui  the  existence  of  only  one  God,  —  of  onh'one 
Being  who  is  self-originated,  ubsulutely  perfect,  and  uncqunlletl  by  any  other 
intelligence  in  heaven  or  on  earth.  Here  it  is  admitted  by  IIookek,  — 
though  in  terms  and  with  notions  which  are  taken  from  the  creed  of  a 
metaphysical  age,  but  which,  to  do  justice  to  the  main  idea,  may  be  put 
in  the  simpler  language  of  the  New  Testament,  —  that  that  I^eing  is  tlie 
God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  holy  Son  of  God,  howevei 
divine  may  have  been  his  nature  and  however  great  his  powers,  is  obviously 
diflercnt  from  and  inferior  to  Him  who  is  the  one  God,  the  I'arent  of  his 
existence,  and  the  Giver  of  "  whatsoever  Ciirist  hath."  His  nature  and 
his  powers,  not  less  than  those  of  the  humblest  and  most  obscure  of  the 
human  family,  were  alike  derived  Irom  the  Iniinite  Source  of  lil'e  and  light. 

As  I  am  assured  that  there  is  an  infinite  and  independent  Being, 
which  we  call  a  God.  and  that  it  is  impossible  there  should  be  more 
infinities  than  one ;  so  I  assure  myself  that  this  one  God  is  the  Father 
of  all  things,  especially  of  all  men  and  angels,  so  far  as  the  mere  act  of 
creation  may  be  styled  genenition ;  tliat  lie  is,  farther  yet,  and  in  a 
more  peculiar  manner,  the  Father  of  all  those  wiiom  he  regenerated 
by  his  Sjiirit,  whom  he  adopteth  in  his  Son,  fls  heirs  and  colieirs  with 
him.  .  .  .  But  beyond  and  tiir  above  all  this,  ...  I  believe  him  the 
Father,  in  a  more  emmeut  and  transcendent  manner,  of  one  singular 


THJb;  ONLY  UNDERIVED   AND  SUPREME  BEING.  393 

and  proper  Son,  his  own,  his  beloved,  his  only-begotten  Son ;  whom 
he  hath  nat  only  begotten  of  the  blessed  Virgin,  by  the  coming  of  the 
lloiy  Ghost,  and  the  overshadowing  of  his  power ;  not  only  sent  with 
special  authority  as  the  King  of  Israel ;  not  only  raised  from  the  dead, 
and  made  heir  of  all  things  in  his  house ;  but,  antecedently  to  all  this, 
hath  begotten  him  by  way  of  eternal  generation  in  the  same  Divinity 
and  Majesty  with  himself :  by  which  paternity,  co-eval  to  the  Deity, 
I  acknowledge  him  always  Father,  as  much  as  always  God.  And,  in 
this  relation,  I  profess  that  eminency  and  priority,  that  as  he  is  the 
original  Cause  of  all  things  as  created  by  him,  so  is  he  the  Fountain 
of  the  Son  begotten  of  him,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeding  from 

him.  —  Bishop  Peabson  :  Exposition  of  tlie  Creed,  Art.  I.  pp.  58-9. 

• 

See  another  passage  from  this  learned  writer,  quoted  iu  the  present 
work,  p.  265. 

If  the  human  mind  is  capable  of  entertaining  the  dogma,  that  two  per- 
sons who  received  their  essence,  all  tliat  they  are,  and  all  that  they  have, 
from  another  Being  that  was  prior  to  them  and  is  pre-eminent  over  them, 
are  either  co-equal  and  co-eternal  in  power  and  glory  with  their  Paternal 
Benefactor,  or  are  one  and  the  same  Being,  with  the  self-same  conscious- 
ness, as  he,  —  or  are  both  equal  to  and  identical  with  him,  —  there  seems  to 
be  no  good  reason  for  supposing,  that  it  may  not  also  entertain  any  notion, 
however  gross,  absurd,  or  contradictory,  which,  under  the  name  or  the  plea 
of  a  holy  mystery,  may  be  presented  for  its  belief. 

Not  only  the  name  and  title  of  God,  but  the  most  incommunicable 
properties  and  perfections  of  the  Deity,  are  in  Scripture  frequently 
ascribed  to  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  one  property  only  excepted, 
which  is  peculiar  to  the  Father,  as  he  is  the  Principle  and  Fountain 
of  the  Deity,  —  tliat  he  is  of  himself,  and  of  no  other ;  which  is 
not,  nor  can  be,  said  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  —  AucilBlsilOP 
TiLLOTSON:  Sermon  44;  in  Works,  vol.  iii.  pp. '215-16. 

According  to  this  excellent  prelate,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are 
devoid  of  at  least  one  of  the  properties  or  perfections  of  Deity,  —  underived 
existence.  The  Father,  therefore,  is  alone  God;  for  he  only  has  this  perfec- 
tion ;  he  only  is  absolutely  perfect.  To  use  the  words  of  the  same  writer, 
in  his  forty-eighth  Sermon :  "  Absolute  perfection,  which  we  ascribe  to  God 
as  the  most  essential  notion  which  mankind  hath  always  had  concerning 
him,  does  necessarily  suppose  Unity;  because  this  is  essential  to  the  notion 
of  a  Being  that  is  absolutely  perfect,  that  all  perfection  meets  and  is  united 
in  such  a  Being.  But  to  imagine  more  Gods,  and  some  perfections  to  be  in 
one,  and  some  in  another,  does  destroy  the  most  essential  notion  which  mea 
have  of  God ;  namelj-,  that  he  is  a  Being  absolutely  perfect,  that  is,  as  per 
feet  as  possible." 


39-1  THE   UNIVERSAL   FATHER 

The  Father  is  the  first  person  in  the  following  respects :  1st,  In  the 
order  of  subsistence.  The  liypostasis  is  ascribed  to  the  Father.  The 
Son  is  called  "  the  cxj)ress  image  of  his  person,"  the  character  of  his 
hypostasis.  The  Father,  therefore,  is  the  archetype ;  the  Son,  the 
resemblance :  but  the  archetype  is  prior  to  that  whicli  is  conformed  to 

it.  .  .  Whilst  [however],  &:c 2dly,  Li  the  order  of  operation. 

Since  the  Father  works  by  the  Son,  it  necessarily  follows,  tlut,  in 
reLvtion  to  the  other  persons,  he  works  originally  and  from  himself, 
and  hi\s  in  himself  the  principle  of  operation,  as  well  personally  as 
essentially.  —  Herman  WiTStus  :  Dissertations  on  the  ^-Iposlles' 
Creed,  Diss.  vii.  6,  7. 

When  the  Son  is  called  second  to  the  Father,  or  a  minister  to  tjje 
Father,  this  denotes  the  subordination  of  persons,  inasmuch  as  the  one 
derives  his  origin  from  the  other,  but  does  not  imjjly  any  inequaUty  of 
nature  in  these  divine  persons.  The  Fatlier,  as  the  Father,  is  the  first 
person  in  the  Holy  Trinity ;  the  Son,  the  second  after  the  Father. 
In  all  divine  operations,  the  Son  is  the  muiister  of  tlie  Father,  inasmuch 
as  lie  ever  operates  frorn  the  Father,  who  is  the  Source  and  Origin 
of  all  his  divine  operations  as  well  as  of  his  being,  and  God  the  Father 
operates  through  him ;  but  the  Father  is  never  said  to  operate  from 
the  Son,  or  the  Son  through  the  Father.  —  Bisnop  Bull  :  Defeiisin 
Fidei  JSTiceiifB,  sect.  iv.  cap.  2,  §  2. 

This  extract  is  quoted  and  approved  by  \V.  D.  Conybeare  in  his  Theo- 
logical Lectures,  pp.  457-8. 

Notwithstanding  the  learned  bishop's  attempt  to  evade  the  consequences 
resulting  from  his  own  sentiments,  when  he  says  that  the  Son's  derivation 
from  the  Father  "  does  not  imply  any  inequality  of  nature,"  we  have  no 
hesitation  in  ulFinning  that  no  Unitarian  could  frame  language  more  jjlainiy 
expressive  of  the  infinite  disparity  and  the  unqualified  distinction  which 
exist  between  the  Sujireme  Being,  or  universal  i'arent,  and  his  best-beloved 
Son.  The  First  of  all  fathers  and  of  all  intelligences,  here  unscriptnrally 
called  "  the  first  person  in  the  Holy  Trinity,"  is,  according  to  Bishop  Bulu, 
and  in  perfect  agreement  with  the  declarations  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
"  Source  and  Origin  of  all  the  divine  operations  of  the  Son,  as  well  as  of  his 
being."  In  proof  of  this  position,  we  would  refer  to  the  numerous  texts 
quoted  in  the  first  part  of  "  Scripture  Proofs  and  Scriptural  Illustrations  of 
Unitarianism." 

God  the  Father  alone  is,  in  reference  to  his  manner  of  existence, 
an  absolutely  perfect  Being,  because  he  alone  is  self-existent.  He 
alone,  consequently,  is  absolutely  perfect  in  reference  to  those  pei-* 
lectic-ns  whicii   do  presuppose  self-existence.     Those  perfections  arp 


THE  ONLY    UNDEIUVED  AND   feUPREMi:  BEING.  395 

absolute  independence,  and  being  the  first  Original  of  all  other  beings ; 
in  which  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  comprehended.  ...  It  is, 
therefore,  a  flat  contradiction  to  say  that  the  second  and  third  persona 
are  sell-existent ;  and  therefore  it  is  alilve  contradictious  to  affirm  them 
to  be  beings  absolutely  perfect  in  reference  to  their  manner  of  existence, 
and  to  say  that  they  have  the  perfections  of  absolute  independence,  and 
of  being  the  first  Originals  of  all  things.  Suice  the  Father  alone  is  a 
Being  of  the  most  absolute  perfection,  he  having  those  perfections 
which  the  other  two  persons  are  uncapable  of  ha^^ng,  he  alone  is  God 
in  the  absolutely  highest  sense.  —  Edwakd  Fowler,  Bishop  of 
Gloucester:  Certain  Propositions,  pp.  3-5,  Lond.  1719. 

These  sentiments  yield  up,  in  the  clearest  manner,  the  great  principle 
for  which  Unitarians  have  always  contended;  but  that  they  were  not  penned 
by  a  Unitarian  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that,  in  the  same  small  pamphlet, 
the  writer  professes  to  oppose  both  Ariaiiism  and  Socinianism,  by  asserting 
that  the  Son  and  Holj'  Spirit  have  all  the  perfections  of  the  Godhead,  such 
as  eternal  existence  and  unlimited  power,  with  the  exception  of  those  that 
must  of  necessity  be  peculiar  to  the  Father,  and  "  that  there  is  an  uncou- 
ceivably  close  and  inseparable  union  both  in  will  and  nature  between  them  " 
and  the  Father.  (See  pp.  7-10.)  A  defender  of  the  Nicene  fathers,  and  an 
admirer,  if  not  a  disciple,  of  Cudwokth  and  Bull,  he  only  carries  out  their 
principles  to  a  more  legitimate  extent. 

The  Father  is,  as  it  were,  the  top  of  Unity,  the  Head  and  Foun- 
tain of  alL  He  is  first  in  our  conception  of  God;  and  therefore, 
whether  we  speak  of  the  Almighty  God,  or  the  eternal  God,  or  the 
all-knowing  God  (and  the  reason  is  the  same  for  the  only  God,  unity 
being  an  attribute  of  the  Godhead,  like  omnipotence,  eternity,  &c.), 
we  primarily  and  principally  mean  the  Father,  tacitly  including  the 
other  two  persons It  is  very  certain  that  the  Son  has  his  know- 
ledge, and  every  other  perfection,  fi'om  the  Father,  in  the  same  sense 
as  he  hath  also  his  nature  or  substance  from  the  Father.  —  Dr.  Daniel 
Waterlaxd:  Eight  Sermons,  pp.  141,  267. 

But  this  writer  adds,  that  the  Son's  knowledge  is  one  and  the  same,  in 
extent  and  degree,  with  the  Father's. 

In  those  verses  [of  the  Athanasian  Creed],  the  Father  is  asserted 
to  be  the  Fountain  and  Origin  of  Divinity,  and  of  course  the  Fountain 
and  Origin  of  all  di\ine  power.  The  Nicene  Creed,  which  corresjDondi 
irith  the  creed  under  consideration,  intimates  the  same,  when  it  styles 
our  Lord  "  God  of,  i.  e.  from  God,  Light  of  Light,  very  God  cf  very 
God-"     And  the  most  learned  writer  on  this  subject  [Bishoo  Bull] 


396  THE  FATHER  ONLY,  OXDERIA'ED. 

has  shown  that  the  primitive  Chi'istians  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  as 
•well  as  alter  tliat  council,  held  thLs  doctrine.  Uno  ore  docuerunt  are 
his  words,  "  they  taught  it  with  one  voice,"  so  unanimous  were  they  in 
this  opinion.  —  BlSHOP  IIUNTINGFORD  :  Thoughis  on  tlie  Trinity  ; 
ill  Tfieological  Works,  p.  90. 

Tile  ^^hole  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  .  .  .  holds  forth  to  us  an 
estiiblishment  of  divine  wisdom,  righteousness,  and  goodness,  for  the 
recovery  of  lapsed  mankind  to  holiness  and  happiness.  In  this  con- 
stitution, the  Almighty  Father  is  the  First  Cause  and  the  Supreme 
Object  of  the  whole,  sustiiining  the  legisktive  honors  of  the  di^ine 
character :  and  therefore  he  is  peciUiarly  denominated  God,  "  of  whom 
are  all  things,"  in  the  creation  and  sustentation  of  the  universe,  and  in 
the  redemption  and  salvation  of  the  church,  "  and  we  to  him,"  as  our 
highest  end;  "the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;"  also  "the  one 
God,"  "  the  only  God,"  and  "  the  true  God,"  in  opposition  to  the  ficti- 
tious deities  of  the  world.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Son  of  God  is  the 
Mediator,  Saviour,  Redeemer,  and  Lord,  in  the  actual  execution  of 
the  eternal  and  gracious  purposes,  by  his  humiliation  in  assuming  our 
nature,  by  his  exaltation  in  that  nature  and  in  his  official  cajwcity,  and 
by  the  works  of  his  IIol\'  Spirit,  Thus  the  Father  is  glorified  in  the 
Son,  the  Spirit  of  Truth  glorifies  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  God  is  all  in 
all.  —  Dr.  J.  P.  Smith  :  Sa-iplure  Testimony,  vol.  ii.  p.  392. 

See  LiMBORCH  and  IIolden,  us  quoted  in  p.  266;  with  remarks  by 
Calvin,  Le  Clkhc,  and  Stuaut,  on  this  mode  of  exi)l;iiiiiiif!;  the  Trinity  iu 
Unity,  pp.  266-8.  See  also  Stuakt  and  Dr.  D.  W.  Clakk  on  eternal  gene- 
ration and  procession,  pp.  274-6. 

With  the  exception  of  siuh  Trinitarians  as  believe  in  a  nominal  or 
relative  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  those  wlio  deny  the  eternal 
generation  of  the  Son  and  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  —  whose  opi- 
nions, when  definitely  explained,  are,  as  we  before  observed,  either  a  kind 
of  obscure  Unitarianisni,  or  an  unconscious  Tritheism,  —  perhaps  a  great 
majority  of  those  who  are  professedly  orthodox  on  the  subject  agree  with 
the  eminent  writers  from  whom  we  have  made  extracts  in  this  section. 
The  sentiments  here  propounded,  however,  when  separated  from  tlie  anti- 
Bcriptural  dogmas  with  whicli  they  are  combined,  are  evidently  notiiing 
else  than  Unitarianism;  namely,  that  God  the  Father  is  the  only  Being  who 
is  self-existent  or  uiioriginated  and  independent;  that  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  (as  signifying  a  person  distinct  from  the  Father),  received  their 
existence,  their  capacities,  and  their  powers  from  Him  who  is  called  "  the 
Fountain  of  Deity;"  or,  in  other  words,  that  .lesns  Christ,  and  every  other 
person  or  being  in  the  universe,  are  infinitely  subordinate  or  inferior  to  the 
one  Sujireme  God,  the  Almighty  Father. 


IMPROPRIETY  OF   PRAYING   TO   A  TRINITY.  397 


SECT,  IV.  --  THE  ONE  SUPREME  PERSON  OR  BEING,  THE  FATHER,  THB 
ONLY   OBJECT  OF   PRIMARY  AND  UNCEASING   ADORATION. 

0  God  I  we  praise  thee,  and  confess 

That  thou  the  only  Lord 
And  everlasting  Father  art,  • 

By  all  the  earth  adored. 

Bishop  Patrick. 

f  1.   The  Worship  of  a  Trinity  Unscriftural  and  Improper.  — 
God  to  be  addressed  as  One. 

I  dislike  this  vulgar  prayer,  "  Holy  Trinity,  one  God !  have  mercy 
on  us,"  as  altogether  savoring  of  barbarism.  We  repudiate  such 
expressions,  as  being  not  only  insipid,  but  profiine.  —  Abridged  from 
John  Calvin  :  Tmdaius  Theologici,  p.  796. 

In  reference  to  this  remark,  Dr.  South  (in  Judgment  of  a  Disinterested 
Person,  p.  29)  says:  "As  to  that  prayer  [in  the  Litm-gy  of  the  Church  of 
England],  '  0  God  the  Father!  have  mercy  on  us;  0  God  the  Son!  have 
mercy  on  us ;  0  God  the  Holy  Ghost !  have  mercy  on  us,'  —  it  hath  been 
disliked-by  divers  learned  men,  particularly  by  Mr.  Calvin.  But  'tis  cer- 
tain, 'tis  not  the  church's  intention  to  own  hereby  three  spirits,  or  three 
objects  of  worship;  the  object  of  worship  being  incontestably,  and  I  think 
confessedly,  but  one.  The  church,  by  this  form  of  pra^'er,  means  only  to 
invocate  God  by  the  three  distinctions  which  she  owneth  to  be  in  him.  .  .  . 
'  Father,'  when  said  of  God,  is  original  intellect;  'Son'  is  reflex  wisdom; 
and  '  Holy  Spirit'  is  divine  love." 

We  quote  the  whole  passage,  in  the  Litany,  that  the  reader  may  compare 
it  with  any  of  the  prayers  recorded  in  the  Bible  as  having  been  presented 
to  God  by  Jesus  Christ  and  the  apostles,  especially  with  that  most  simple 
and  sublime  of  all  liturgical  forms,  —  the  Lord's  Prayer.  "  0  God  the  Fa- 
ther of  heaven !  have  mercy  upon  us  miserable  sinners.  0  God  the  Son, 
Redeemer  of  the  world  !  have  mercy  upon  us  miserable  sinners.  0  God  the 
Holy  Ghost,  proceeding  from  the  Father  and  the  Son !  have  mercy  upon  us 
miserable  sinners.  0  holy,  blessed,  and  glorious  Trinity,  three  persons  and 
one  God!  have  mercy  upon  us  miserable  sinners." 

Whatever  may  have  been  "  the  church's  intention,"  we  think  it  "  incon- 
testable "  that  no  terms  could  more  clearly  express  belief  in  the  existence 
of  three  separate  objects  of  worship,  or  three  Gods,  than  the  prayer  to  which 
the  Genevan  Reformer  objects.  And  South  himself  seems  to  have  felt 
that  his  Sabellian  "  distinctions "  could  not  be  appreciated  by  the  great 
mass  of  the  worshippers  in  the  English  church ;  for  he  immediately  adds, 
'  Notwith-standiug,  because  of  the  common  people,  who  by  occasion  of  that 

34 


398  GOD,   THE   FATHER, 

form  may  entertain  Trithcistic  notions,  Mr.  Calvin  advised  well,  that  this 
and  such  like  offensive  forms  be  taken  away.  When  I  say  '  offensive,'  I 
mean  they  are  forms  at  wliich  tlie  ignorant  may  dangerously  stumble,  — 
may  easily  make  shipwreck  of  the  faith." 

We  Cliristians  arc  taught  by  the  Christian  religion  to  acknowledge 
and  worship  the  only  true  God  :  "  and  we  are  in  Him  that  is  true,  in 
or  by  his  Son  Jesus  Christ ;"  that  is,  we  worship  the  only  true  God, 

by  his  Son  Jesus  Chi'ist The  religion  of  the  apostles  and 

primitive  Christians  .  .  .  exjjressly  teacheth  us,  that  there  is  but  one 
object  of  our  prajers,  and  one  Mediator  by  whom  we  are  to  make 
our  addresses  to  God.  "  There  is  one  God ;  and  one  Mediator  between 
God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,"  says  St.  Paul,  when  he  gives  a 
standing  rule  concerning  prayer  in  the  Christian  church.  —  ARCH- 
BISHOP Tillotson:  Senmiis  71,  191;  in  ff'orks,  vol.  v.  p.  189,  and 
vol.  X.  p.  144. 

Whatever  distinction  we  are  taught  to  make  of  the  persons  of  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  are  most  carefully  warned 
[by  the  compilers  of  our  Liturgy]  against  the  division  of  the  Godhead ; 
and  all  our  devotions  are  addressed  to  one  and  the  same  God,  through 
the  mediation  of  Christ  Jesus,  agreeably  to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scn^ 
ture,  and  particularly  to  the  doctrine  laid  down  in  the  jilainest  terms 
in  my  text  [1  Tim.  ii.  5],  that  "  there  is  but  one  God,  and  one  Media- 
tor between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus."  —  Dr.  Benjamin 
Dawson  :  Rlustraiion  of  Texts  of  Scripture,  pp.  206-7. 

No  one  will  assert  that  God  is  ever  directly  addressed  in  the  Bible  as  a 
Trinity  of  co-eternal  or  self-existent  hypostases,  or  even  of  unequal  but 
essentially  divine  agents;  but  ratlier  invariably  as  one  single  Person  or 
Being,  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth,  the  God  of  the  Jews,  the  Father 
of  Jesus  Clirist,  the  Parent  of  all  intelligent  beings.  Yet,  unhappily,  the 
practice  of  Christian  churches  has,  in  general,  differed  from  that  of  p''0])hets 
and  apostles;  and  Dr.  Dawson's  statement  would  have  been  nearer  the 
truth  of  tiie  case,  had  he  said  that  all  the  devotions  of  the  English  cliurch 
shrnild.  "agreeably  to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture,"  be  addressed  to  one 
and  the  same  God. 

The  general  practice  of  Scripture  seems  to  indicate,  that,  in  ordinary 
worshij),  we  should  address  the  Deity  in  his  unity,  manifested  to  us  as, 
in  Christ  Jesus,  reconciling  the  world  to  himself,  not  imjjuting  to  men 
their  tresj)asses.  I  confess  that  I  have  ever  disliked  the  use  of  the 
word  "Trinity"  in  prayer  to  God,  as  not  i)eing  a  name  whereby  God 
reveals  himself  to  us,  and  as  savoring  of  scholastic  theology.  —  JaMKS 
Caulilk:  J :sus  Christ  tlie  Great  God  our  Saviour,  p.  232. 


THE   GREAT   OBJECT  OF   RELIGIOUS   WORbUIP.  399 

^  2.   The  Fatiieu  entitusd  to  Supkeme  Woiisnip. 

Then  do  we  honor  the  Trinity  in  Unity,  not  when  we  conceive  of 
the  mystery,  but  when  Ave  make  a  religious  use  of  this  high  advantage 
to  come  to  God  in  the  name  of  Christ  by  the  Spirit,  and  look  for  all 
from  God  in  Christ  tln-ough  the  Holy  Ghost.  Direct  your  prayers  to 
God  the  Father.  Christ  prayed  to  the  Father :  « I  thank  thee,  O 
Father !  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth."  So  the  saints  in  their  addresses : 
"  For  this  cause  I  bow  my  knees  unto  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  Pray  in  the  name  of  Christ :  "  Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in 
my  name,  that  will  I  do."  Pi-ay  by  the  Spirit :  "  Prajing  in  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  "  "  Likewise  the  Spu-it  itself  also  helpeth  our  infirmities, 
because  he  maketh  intercession  for  the  saints,  according  to  the  will 
of  God."  Christians  need  not  puzzle  themselves  about  conceiA"ing  of 
Three  in  One,  and  One  in  Three :  let  them  in  this  manner  come  to 
God,  and  it  sufficeth;  make  God  the  object,  and  Christ  the  means 
of  access,  and  look  for  help  from  the  Spirit.  —  Dr.  Thomas  Manton  ; 
apud  Christian  Reformer  for  June,  1839. 

When  we  speak  of  or  contemplate  the  dinne  nature  absolutely, 
and  without  reference  to  particular  dispensations,  God  the  Father  is 
generally  the  first  in  our  conceptions,  as  ilir  as  he  can  be  the  object  of 
conception,  but  not  to  the  exclusion  of  the  divine  nature  either  of  the 
Son  or  Holy  Ghost.  In  these  dispensations,  in  the  heavenly  economy, 
we  have  a  manifest  and  obvious  reason  for  addressing  our  prayers  and 
petitions,  public  and  private,  for  the  most  part,  to  the  first  person  of 
the  Holy  Trinity.  —  William  Hawkins  :  Discourses  on  Scripture 
Mysteries,  pj).  29,  30. 

It  ajjpears  from  what  has  been  said,  that  we  ought  to  regard  and 
acknowledge  the  Father  as  the  Head  of  the  Sacred  Trinity,  and  the 
primary  object  of  religious  homage.  .  .  .  We  often  read  of  Christ's 
praying  unto  the  Father,  but  never  read  of  the  Father's  praying  unto 
Christ.  He  taught  his  disciples  to  pray  in  the  same  form  in  whicli 
he  prayed,  and  to  say,  "  Our  Father  whicli  art  in  heaven ; "  and  to 
ask  the  Father,  in  his  name,  for  every  thing  they  wanted.  And  how 
often  did  the  apostles  offer  up  their  devout  and  fervent  prayers  for 
others  to  "  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ " !  This 
common  mode  of  expression,  in  their  addresses  to  the  throne  of  grace, 
plainly  implies  that  they  meant  to  acknowledge  the  Father  as  the 
primary  or  supreme  olyect  of  adoration.  Though  the  heavenly  hosts 
pay  divine  homage  to  the  Son  of  God,  yet  they  more  immediately  and 


400  GOD,   TUE   FATHER, 

directly  address  the  Father  in  their  most  solemn  and  grateful  devo- 
tions. They  say,  "  Blessing  and  honor  and  glory  and  power  be  unto 
Him  that  sitteth  on  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb,  for  ever  and  ever." 
These  examples  of  Christ,  of  the  a])ostles,  and  of  the  heavenly  hosts, 
not  only  warrant  l)ut  require  Christians  to  address  their  jjrayers  and 
praises  to  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  primary 
object  of  divine  homage  and  adoration.  —  De.  Nathanael  Emmons  : 
Works,  vol.  iv.  ])p.  137-8. 

Ill  the  same  pages  from  wliich  this  extract  is  taken,  Dr.  Kmsioxs  incon- 
sistently speaks  of  "  all  the  three  persons  in  the  Godhead  "  as  "  eqtwl  in 
every  divine  perfection ;  "  and  approves  the  conduct  of  "  the  great  body  of 
the  most  pure  and  pious  Christians"  who  have  "denied  Christian  commu- 
nion and  fellowship  to  those  who  have  openly  embraced  the  Unitarian 
error;"  that  is,  as  we  understand  it,  to  those  who,  like  himself,  regard  the 
God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  "the  primary  or  supreme 
object  of  adoration." 

The  revealed  order  in  the  economy  of  redemption  and  grace,  and 
the  authority  of  Scripture,  lead  to  the  persuasion,  that  the  most  usual 
mode  of  our  devotional  addresses  should  be  to  the  Father,  with  exjjli- 
cit  reference  to  the  mediation  of  the  Son  and  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  —  Dr.  J.  Pyk  Smith  :  Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Messinh, 
vol.  ii.  p.  455. 

Li  the  Scriptm-es  .  .  .  we  are  directed  and  encouraged  to  address 
ourselves  to  him  [God]  as  our  heavenly  Father,  tluough  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Son  of  his  love ;  and  in  his  name  to  offer  up  our  prayers  and 
praises,  our  confessions  and  thanksgivings,  with  the  profoundest  humi- 
litv,  becoming  creatures  deejjly  sensible  of  their  own  unworthiness.  — 
Thomas  Haktwkll  IIorne:  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and 
Knowledge  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  vol.  i.  p.  149. 

§  3.  TiiK  Son  rahei-y,  the  Holy  Gtiost  (as  a  Pkiison  difkehent  fuom 
THE  Katheh)  neveh,  in  the  15ini,E,  addkessed  in  Prayer. 

All  j)rayer  is  regularly  directed  to  the  Father,  and  concluded  m  the 
name  of  the  Son.  ,  .  .  But  all  j)rayer  is  addressed  to  the  Fatiier  or  to 
the  Son,  and  never  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  because  the  Holy  Sjiirit  is  a 
gift ;  and  a  gift  is  not  to  be  asked  from  the  gift,  but  rather  bestowed 
by  the  liberal  giver.  —  William  Dl'Rand;  apud  Sandium,  p.  213. 

Nearly  in  the  same  words,  Hugh  i>e  St.  Cher,  who  says  that  "prayer 

should  be  olVered  uj)  rarely  to  the  Son." 


THE  GREAT  OBJECT   OF   RELIGIOUS   WORSHIP.  401 

That  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God  is  nowhere  said  in  Scripture ;  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  to  be  invocated  is  nowhere  commanded,  nor  any  exam- 
ple of  its  being  done  recorded.  —  Jeremy  Taylor  :  Works,  vol.  xiii. 
pp.  143-4. 

When  you  make  your  praj'ers,  you  use  to  pray  to  the  Father,  and 
likewise  in  the  name  of  Christ ;  but  you  do  not  at  all  or  seldom  read, 
in  all  the  Scriptures,  of  prayers  made  to  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  And  why  ? 
Because  it  is  his  office  to  make  the  prayers  themselves,  which  you 
thus  put  up  to  the  other  two  persons;  and  therein  lieth  his  honor.  — 
]")r.  Thomas  Goodwin  :  Exposition  of  the  Epistle  to  tlie  Ephesians, 
part  i.  p.  16. 

It  is  true  we  have  no  precept  or  example  for  paying  distinct  and 
direct  homage  to  the  Holy  Ghost;  but,  &c.  —  Dr.  Nathan ael 
Emmons  :  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  138. 

The  words  [in  1  Thess.  iii.  11]  are  certainly  decisive  for  the  opi- 
nion, that  prayers  to  the  Son  are  not  inadmissible,  even  if  they  refer 
to  external  relations ;  but  the  very  circumstance  that  such  occur  no 
more  in  the  New  Testament,  and  then  the  whole  analogy  of  faith,  are, 
surely,  decidedly  ojiposed  to  making  prayers  to  the  Saviour  frequently, 
much  more  predominantly  and  almost  exclusively,  in  all  external 
circumstances,  as  is  done  in  the  community  of  Moravian  brothers. 
The  entire  ancient  church  knows  of  no  prayers  to  Christ  which  have 
reference  to  externals.  If,  therefore,  beginners  in  the  life  of  faith  often 
confess  themselves  to  be  uncertain  whether  they  shall  address  their 
pravers  to  the  Father  or  to  the  Son,  or  even  to  the  Holy  Ghost  per- 
haps, it  is  to  be  assumed  as  a  general  rule,  according  to  the  rightly 
understood  relation  of  the  Trinity,  that  external  relations  must  be 
brought  before  the  Father  in  prayer,  but  the  religious  moral  relations 
before  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  or,  in  fine,  that  one  should  pray  for 
every  thing  of  the  Father,  throxigh  the  Son,  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  — 
Hermann  Olshausen  on  1  Thess.  iii.  11. 

The  distinction,  here  spoken  of,  between  relations  which  are  external 
and  those  of  a  religious  and  moral  kind,  as  a  ground  for  addressing  different 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  was  entirely  unknown  to  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
apostles.  The  great  Master  taught  his  disciples,  in  all  that  related  to 
prayer,  or  divine  worship,  to  address  no  other  person  or  being  than  Him 
who  was  the  sole  object  of  his  own  praises  and  petitions;  and,  except  in 
a  few  cases  of  a  peculiar  character,  the  apostles  faithfully  obeyed  his  e'rict 
and  unqualified  behest. 

A  list  of  the  texts  showing  the  propriety  of  our  restricting  supreme  ado- 
ration to  the  greatest  of  all  beings,  the  God  and  Father  ot  our  Lord  Jesus 

34* 


402  GOD,   THE  FATHER, 

Christ,  will  be  found  in  "  Scripture  Proofs  and  Scriptural  Illustra,tions  ol 
Unitarianism,"  part  i.  chap.  1,  sect.  11.  The  few  passages  which  seem  to 
favor  occasional  prayers  to  our  Lord  will  be  noticed  in  future  volumes  of  the 
present  work. 

Olshausen's  concluding  recommendation,  that  "  one  should  pray  for 
every  thing  of  the  Father,"  Ike,  accords  with  the  following  verse  in  au 
ancient  hymn,  — 

"  To  thee,  great  God,  we  bend  the  knee, 
And  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
Through  Christ,  all  glory  give  to  thee. 
With  all  the  heavenly  host; '"  — 

and,  if  its  simple  grandeur  be  not  alloyed  by  the  introduction  of  mouem 
elements  of  thought,  is  more  scriptural  than  the  generality  of  the  doxologies 
pronounced  and  sung  in  Trinitarian  churches.  Compare  Dr.  Manton's 
remarks,  quoted  in  p.  399. 


\  4.  The  Father,  almost  to  the  entire  Exclusion  of  the  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost,  worshipi'ed  by  the  Trinitarian  Conguegational- 
iSTs,  OR  Indei'kndents,  of  England. 

Does  the  direct  worship  of  the  Lord  Christ  occupy  so  prominent  a 
place  in  our  prayers,  public  and  private,  as,  considering  the  charactei 
of  the  dispensation,  and  Scripture  warrant,  it  ought  and  might  ?  and, 
if  not,  does  not  this  suhtmet  an  element  of  holy  inspiration  from 
our  social  sernces,  which  might  go  to  inform,  animate,  and  warm  our 
fellow-worshippers  and  ourselves.-'  ...  It  is  feai'ed  that  such  a  charge 
[namely,  of  seeming  to  war  against  the  glory  of  the  Mediator]  derives 
countenance  from  the  almost  universiil  practice  of  addressing  the 
Father  alone  in  prayer,  although  nothing  could  be  further  from  the 
writer's  thoughts  than  to  insinuate  that  this  springs  in  any  measure 
from  want  of  devotion  to  the  Son.  ,  .  .  Has  any  mischief  ensued  from 
the  practice  of  exclusively,  or  almost  exclusively,  addressing  the  Father 
in  prayer  ."*  Decidedly,  in  the  writer's  opinion,  would  be  the  reply.  I 
cannot  but  conceive  this  a  cause  (remote  or  pro.ximate)  of  that  almost 
universal  lapse  into  Arianism  or  Unitiirianism  of  tiie  old  Presbyterian 
congregations  in  this  country,  which  were  in  doctrine  identiad,  and 
in  discipline  and  order  of  worship  all  but  identical,  with  the  Inde- 
pendents. I  venture  to  affinrt  this  could  not  Iiave  happened,  had  the 
practice  generally  prevailed,  to  wliich  attention  is  now  solicited.  —  A 
PaivSUYrKK;  in  tlie  Congregationat  Magazine  for  February,  1841, 
pp.  84-5 


THE   GREAT  OBJECT  OF  RELIGIOUS  WORSHIP.  403 

The  remarks  of  "A  Presbyter"  in  your  valual)le  periodical,  "On 
the  duty  of  directing  worshij)  to  Christ,"  reminded  me  of  a  passage 
in  the  "  Diary  "  of  an  eminently  holy  man,  whose  spirit  has  long  since 
been  estranged  from  the  imperfections  which  attach  to  our  most  per- 
fect acts  of  homage  on  earth,  and  prostrated  itself,  in  blissful  adoration, 
at  the  feet  of  the  glorified  lledccmer  in  heaven,  —  I  mean  the  late 
Mr.  J()S]';rn  Williams,  of  Kidderminster.  *'  I  have  been  frequently 
in  doubt,  of  late,"  writes  this  sainted  individual,  "  whether  I  should 
pray  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  or  not.  It  has  been  my  prevailing 
opinion  that  I  should ;  and  accordingly  I  have  done  it  fi-equently,  for 
many  months,  in  my  secret  retirements,  with  lively  emotions  of  soul ; 
and  I  think  I  should  do  it  more  in  family  prayer,  and  more  in  pul)lic ; 
but  it  is  with  some  difficulty  I  bring  myself  to  it,  and  I  still  find  in 
myself  a  shyness  of  doing  it."  Amongst  the  causes  which  operated 
to  impose  a  restraint  upon  this  specific  kind  of  devotional  exercise,  he 
refers  to  the  fact  that  no  ministers,  in  the  circle  of  his  acquaintance, 
were  accustomed  to  pray  expressly  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  late  Mr.  Bradshaw,  who,  on  one  occasion,  in  discoursing 
of  the  manner  of  transacting  a  covenant  with  each  of  the  persons  in 
the  Sacred  Trinity,  urged  the  following  formula :  "  Blessed  Jesus ! 
assert  thy  right,  erect  thy  throne  in  my  soul,  and  bring  every  power 
thereof,  and  every  member  of  my  body,  into  subjection  to  thy  law." 
Besides  this,  he  could  not  call  to  mind  a  single  instance  of  direct 
address  to  him  in  prayer.  Now  it  is  extremely  probable,  sir,  — 
indeed,  the  writer's  past  consciousness  and  observation  attest  the  fact, 
—  that  others  have  entei'tained  a  similar  doubt  respecting  the  propriety 

of  such  direct  appeal Were  it  not  for  fear  of  trespassing  too 

much  on  your  pages,  and  of  incurring  the  charge  of  presumption 
(which,  perhaps,  I  have  already  done)  in  assuming  the  character  of  a 
teacher  of  my  brethren  and  fathers  in  the  ministry,  there  is  a  kindred 
theme,  to  which  I  would  venture  to  call  the  attention  of  your  readers : 
[  mean  the  claims  to  divine  worship  of  the  blessed  Spirit,  the  regenera- 
tor and  sanctifier  of  the  human  soul.  I  am  aware  that  this,  as  well  as 
that  under  consideration,  are  clearly  recognized  in  some  of  the  sweetest 
strains  of  the  Congregational  Psalmody  at  present  in  use  among  us ;  ,  . 
but  there  is  reason  to  believe,  that  the  special  mode  of  supj)lication, 
embodied  in  these  devotional  hymns,  does  not  obtivin,  either  in  the  ])ul- 
pit,  at  the  family  alt^ir,  or  in  the  closet,  to  the  extent  which  it  ought  on 
the  supposition  of  its  being  a  scriptural  formula.  —  A.  E.  P.  of  Lozells, 
Birham  ;  in  tlie  Cong.  Magazine  for  April,  1841,  pj).  247-50, 


404  GOD,   THE   FATHER, 

I  am  perfectly  agreed  ^^•ith  your  correspondent  on  the  propriety  and 
duty  of  addressing  religious  worship  to  Jesus  Christ.  .  .  .  But,  while 
tliis  is  my  firm  conviction,  I  also  think  with  a  distinguished  advociite 
of  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord  [Dr.  J.  P.  Smith],  and  with,  I  presume, 
the  generality  of  Christians,  that  "  the  revealed  order  in  the  economy 
of  redemption  and  grace,  and  the  authority  of  Scrij)ture,  lead  to  the 
persuasion,  that  the  most  usual  mode  of  our  devotional  addresses 
should  be  to  the  Father,  with  explicit  reference  to  the  mediation  of 
the  Son  and  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  knguage  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  the  entire  structure  of  the  Christian  system,  so 
completely  harmonize  with  this  position,  that  the  difficulty  is  ratiier  to 
select  than  to  find  proofs  of  its  correctness.  "  But  the  hour  cometh," 
said  our  Lord,  when  referring  to  the  dispensation  he  was  about  to 
introduce,  "  and  now  is,  when  the  true  worshippers  shall  worship  the 
Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  When  he  had  nearly  comjjleted  its 
introduction,  when  he  had  nearly  opened  the  new  and  living  way  to 
God,  he  said,  "  Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  the  Father  in  my  name,  he 
will  give  it  you ;  "  "  At  that  day  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name."  It  is  also 
quite  evident,  that  the  apostles  understood  our  Lord  as  directing  them 
to  pray  to  the  Father.  ^V'hatever  occasional  religious  homage  tliey 
paid  to  Jesus  Christ,  (and  who  that  views  himself  as  redeemed  by  his 
blood  can  fliil  to  pay  religious  homage  to  him  ?)  their  usual  worship 
■was  addressed  to  the  Father.  For  the  Ephesiun  Cliristians  the  apostle 
prayed,  "  That  the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of  glory, 
may  give  unto  them  the  Sjjirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation  in  the  know- 
ledge of  him."  He  says,  "  For  this  cause  I  bow  my  knees  unto  the 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  The  apostles  doubtless  addressed 
thanksgiving  to  the  lledeemer ;  but  their  more  frequent  thanksgivings 
seem  to  have  been  addressed  to  the  Father.  "  Blessed  be  the  God 
and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  blessed  us  with  all 
spiritual  blessings  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ;"  "Giving  tlianks  unto 
the  Father,  wlio  hath  made  us  meet  to  be  partakers  of  the  inheritance 
of  the  saints  hi  light ; "  "  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  which,  according  to  his  abundant  mercy,  hath  begotten 
us  again  unto  a  lively  hope,  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from 
the  de;id."  The  religion  of  the  New  Testament  does  not  terminate 
in  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  a  great  and  glorious  scheme  to  lead  us  thro'igh 
Jesus  Christ  to  the  Father.  "  Througli  him  we  have  an  access  by  one 
Spirit  unto  the  Father."  We  may  hence  conclude,  that  although 
the  worship  of  Jesus  Christ  is  both  the  duty  and  the  happiness  of  the 


THE   GKEAT   OBJECT   OF  RELIGIOUS   WORSHTP.  405 

Christian,  that  his  usual  worship  should  be  addressed  to  the  Father ; 
and  that  the  worship  of  the  Father,  through  the  mediation  of  ihe 
Son,  and  by  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  grand,  distinguishing 
character  of  Christian  worship.  If  "the  most  usual  mode  of  our 
devotional  addresses  should  be  to  the  Father,"  there  may  seem  to  be 
a  difficulty  in  ascerfciining  the  proportion  which  the  worship  of  Jesus 
Christ  should  bear  to  that  of  the  Father.  This  seeming  difficulty  Avill, 
however,  vanish  in  Christian  practice.  .  .  .  The  worship  of  our  blessed 
Redeemer,  except  in  the  form  of  singing  his  praise,  is  perhaps  more 
adapted  to  personal  than  social,  to  private  than  public,  worship.  If, 
however,  his  worship  be  introduced  into  our  public  assemblies,  and  in 
the  manner  of  the  Te  Deum  associated  with  praises  or  with  prayers 
to  the  Father,  there  will  be  required  no  small  skill  in  the  use  of  lan- 
guage to  mark  the  transition  from  the  Avorship  of  the  Father  to  that  of 
Jesus  Christ,  or  from  the  worship  of  Jesus  Christ  to  that  of  the  Father ; 
and  to  prevent  the  confusion  which  such  a  transition  would  otherwise 
occasion.  —  Another  Presbyter  ;  in  Congregational  Magazine  for 
Jipril,  1841,  pp.  250-1. 


Verily,  the  dogma  of  a  Triune  God  leads  to  endless  doubts  and  per 
plexities,  some  of  its  theories  implying  the  recognition  of  a  truth  which  is 
diametrically  opposed  to  Trinitarianism  itself;  namely,  that  of  the  unrivalled 
Supremacy  of  one  divine  person  or  being,  the  God  and  Fatlier  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Unnumbered  times  has  it  been  declared,  and  in  every  possible 
variety  of  phrase,  that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  each 
God,  the  same  in  substance,  and  equal  in  power  and  glory,  though  they 
constitute  in  all  but  one  God;  and  yet,  as  we  learn  from  the  quotations  just 
made,  a  most  respectable  body  of  Christians  —  the  English  Independents  or 
Congregationalists,  who  are  professedly  hostile  to  Uniturianism  —  are  accus- 
tomed, not  to  address  this  Triune  God,  or  to  pray  to  the  Son  or  the  Holy 
Ghost,  but  to  put  up  their  supplications  and  thanksgivings  to  the  Father 
alone,  through  the  mediation  of  the  Son.  So  strong,  indeed,  is  the  feeling  of 
hesitation,  in  the  minds  of  many  Christians,  as  to  the  propriety  of  addressing 
their  Master  in  prayer,  that  it  appears  the  good  Mr.  Joseph  Wii^i.iasis.  of 
Kidderminster,  frequently  doubted  whether  he  should  pray  to  him  or  not; 
and,  though  it  was  his  prevailing  opinion  that  he  should,  confessed  that  lie 
still  felt  in  himself  a  shyness  of  doing  it;  referring  to  the  fact,  as  one  of  the 
causes  of  the  restraint  imposed  on  him,  that  no  ministers,  in  the  circle  of 
his  acquaintance,  were  accustomed  to  pray  expressly  to  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  with  the  exception  of  Mr.  Bkadshaw,  wlio,  in  a  discourse  on  one 
particular  occasion,  directly  addressed  him.  This  disuse  of  Trinitarian 
worship  —  this  practice  of  addressing  the  Almighty  Father,  almost,  if  not 
altogether,  to  the  exclusion  of  any  other  person  or  being  —  is,  we  conceive, 


406  THE  FATHER  THE  GREAT  OBJECT   OF   VTORSniP. 

an  unconscious  but  a  distinct  acknowledfrment  of  the  truth  of  Unitarianism, 
and  the  best  and  most  scriptural  of  all  homage  to  the  Anointed  of  God,  who 
expressly  commanded  his  disciples  to  pray  to  the  Father,  and  who  never 
once  enjoined  the  worship  of  "  tlie  Trinity,"  or  of  "'  God  the  Son  "  and 
"  God  the  Holy  Ghost." 

It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  one  of  the  writers,  "  A  Pkesryter,"  con- 
ceives that  tlie  cause  of  the  alciost  universal  lapse  of  the  old  Presbyterian 
congregations  into  Unitarianism  has  arisen  from  the  practice  of  addressing 
the  Father  alone  in  prayer.  We  doubt  not  the  correctness  of  the  remark. 
Abolish  dognnitism  from  the  pulpit,  particularly  in  addresses  to  the  Deity; 
let  the  humble  petitioner,  casting  aside  the  phraseology  of  councils  and  of 
schools,  use  that  simplicity  of  language  which  characterizes  the  Bible, — 
and  the  truth  of  the  Unitarian  doctrine  cannot  be  otherwise  than  eventually 
felt  and  recognized.  Unscriptural  hymns  and  litui-gies,  associated  as  these 
are  with  human  creeds  and  confessions  of  faith,  continually  present  to  the 
mind  of  the  worshipper  the  idea  of  a  Trinity,  of  a  suflTering  God-man,  and 
of  another  agent  called  the  Holy  Ghost,  with  personal  attributes  and  opera- 
tions differing  tVom  those  of  the  one  only  Paternal  Spirit  before  whom  the 
Christ  bowed  in  all  his  acts  of  obedience,  submission,  prayer,  and  praise. 
But  for  these  means  of  sustaining  it,  the  po{)ular  theology  would,  we  think, 
more  speedily  become  purified,  and  more  closely  approximate,  in  its  form 
and  sentiment,  to  the  simple,  rational,  and  elevated  religion  of  the  New 
Testament,  —  all  denominations  of  Christians,  however  they  nniy  diflcr  in 
other  respects,  agreeing  in  no  distant  future  to  unite  their  voices  and  their 
hearts  in  ascriptions  of  praise  to  "  the  Lamb  that  was  slain;"  but  reserving 
their  profounder  homage,  their  supreme  adorations,  for  "  Him  who  sits  upoa 
the  throne,"  —  the  one  Lord  God  Almighty,  the  single  Cause  of  all  exist- 
ence, the  unequalled  and  absolute  Fatlier  of  angels  and  of  men. 


407 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

JESUS   CHRIST  INFERIOR  TO   GOD,  THE  FATHER. 


8ECT.   I.  —  IN  HIS  NATURE   AND  HIS  ATTRIBUTES,   CHRIST   INFERIOB 
TO   GOD. 

Whatsoever  essence  hath  its  existence  from  another  is  not  God. 

Bishop  Pearson. 

In  Chapters  V.  and  VI.  a  great  amount  of  proof,  yielded  by  the  liberality, 
the  learning,  the  unconsciousness,  or  the  inconsistencies  of  Trinitarians, 
was  adduced  to  show  tliat  the  doctrine  of  a  Triune  God  is  either  altogether 
unintelligible  or  absurd,  and  that  it  is  not  plainly  and  expressly  declared  ia 
anyone  passage  within  the  compass  of  the  Bible;  if  indeed,  without  the 
aid  of  tradition  and  the  church,  it  can  at  all  be  established.  But  many  of 
these  writers,  particularly  such  as  belong  to  Protestant  ranks,  while  acknow- 
ledging the  fact  that  there  is  no  clear,  explicit  mention  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity 
in  the  Scriptures,  and  that  the  dogma  itself  is  far  beyond  the  reach  of  human 
discovery,  or  even  of  human  comprehension,  contend  that,  by  a  certain  pro- 
cess of  reasoning,  it  may  be  deduced  by  the  collecting  and  comparing  of 
various  passages  relating  to  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost;  that  divine 
titles,  attributes,  and  works  are  ascribed  in  the  Sacred  Books  both  to  the 
Son  and  the  Spirit,  equally  as  to  the  Father;  and  that,  as  nature  and  reve- 
lation alike  declare  the  unity  of  the  Divine  Being,  these  three  intelligences 
cannot  be  three  separate  and  infinite  Gods,  but  only  three  persons  in  one 
God.  We  have,  however,  already  shown,  by  the  aid  of  our  Trinitarian 
brethren,  that  the  notion  of  three  essentially  divine  persons  or  agents  must, 
from  the  very  conceptions  that  we  are  obliged  to  fonii,  imply  the  idea  of 
three  Gods,  equal  or  unequal;  and,  with  all  reverence,  we  may  venture  to 
say,  that,  if  tlie  inferential  mode  of  proving  the  Trinitarian  dogma  were 
legitimate,  it  would  not  establish  its  truth,  but  the  obvious  contradictions 
of  the  Volume  in  which  it  is  contained.  But  Unitarians  are  not  reduced 
to  the  necessity  of  believing  that  Holy  Scripture  teaches  any  doctrine  so 
irrational.  They  find  the  clearest  and  most  marked  distinctions  made  by 
the  sacred  writers  between  God  and  Jesus  Christ;  between  the  universal 
Father  and  his  best-beloved  Son;  between  the  Anointer  and  the  Anointed; 
between  the  Sender  and  the  Sent;  between  the  primary  Source  of  human 


408  AS   A  DIVINE  BEING, 

salvation,  and  the  faithful  Bearer,  the  meek  and  humble  but  perfect  Per 
former,  of  his  holy  will,  —  distinctions  all  of  such  a  character  :is  necessarily 
to  imply,  not  two  divine  persons,  in  any  metaphysical  or  incomi)rehensible 
sense  of  the  term,  but  two  distinct  beings,  one  of  whom  is  Supreme,  and 
tne  other  subordinate  or  inferior. 

So  full  and  so  resplendent  is  this  evidence,  that,  tliouch  lacking  clear 
and  explicit  proofs  for  tlie  doctrine  of  a  Triune  God,  and  tliougli  naturally 
desirous  of  inferring  a  plurality  of  persons  iu  the  Deity  from  texts  which 
seem  to  imply  an  infinite  nature  in  Christ,  Trinitarians  have  been  com- 
pelled, by  the  force  of  truth,  to  acknowledge  that  in  all  the  circumstances 
in  which  he  was  placed,  and  in  all  the  oflices  and  characters  which  lie  is 
represented  in  the  Christian  Scriptures  as  sustaining,  —  in  the  discipline  by 
which  he  was  prepared  to  act  as  the  Messiah,  in  the  instructions  tie  deli- 
vered, in  the  miracles  he  wrought,  in  the  goodness  he  exhibited,  in  the 
blessings  and  the  warnings  he  pronounced,  as  well  as  in  the  trials  he  en- 
countered, the  sutTerings  he  bore,  the  prayers  he  uttered,  and  the  unbounded 
submission  he  manifested  to  the  will  of  Heaven;  and  not  only  in  all  his 
condition  and  functions  on  earth,  but  also  in  that  state  of  glory  in  which  he 
is  supposed  to  have  existed  before  the  creation  of  the  universe,  or  to  which, 
according  to  the  divine  decree,  he  was  actually  raised  as  the  Lord  and  Ruler 
of  the  church  which  he  had  founded,  —  he  was  dependent  on,  and  inferior 
to,  the  great  Being  who  had  sent  him  into  the  world  to  become  its  Saviour; 
and  that  the  honor  to  which  he  is  entitled  from  all  his  followers,  if  not  from 
the  hosts  of  heaven,  should  not  rest  on  him  as  the  object  of  supreme  venera- 
tion, but  ascend  through  him  to  the  original  Author  of  the  gospel,  —  to 
the  Spring  whence  flowed  the  existence,  the  goodness,  the  wisdom,  and  the 
power  of  the  best  and  mightiest  of  divine  Messengers;  in  other  words,  that 
"  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  gloky  of 
God,  the  Fatiiek." 

The  quotations  that  follow  in  this  chapter  will,  we  conceive,  be  found  to 
bear  out  the  remarks  just  made. 


§  1.    As  A  Divine  Being,  Christ  inferior  to  the  Fatwer. 

"  I  cm  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing,"  saith  our  Saviour,  because  he 
IS  not  of  himself ;  and  whosoever  receives  his  being  must  receive  his 
])ower  from  anotlier,  especially  where  the  essence  and  the  power  are 
undeniably  the  same,  as  iu  God  they  are.  "The  Son,"  then,  "can  do 
nothing  of  himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do,"  because  he  hath 

no  power  of  himself  but  what  the  Father  gave The  divine 

essence  which  Christ  had  as  the  "Word,  before  lie  was  conceived  by  the 
Virgin  Mary,  bo  had  not  of  himself,  but  by  communication  from  God 
the  Father.  For  this  is  not  to  be  denied,  that  there  can  be  but  one 
essence  properly  divine,  and  so  but  one  God  of  infinite  wisdom,  power, 


CHRIST  INFERIOR  TO   THE  FATHER.  409 

and  majesty ;  that  there  can  be  but  one  person  originally  of  himself 
subsisting  in  that  infinite  Being,  because  a  plurality  of  more  persons 
so  subsisting  would  necessarily  infer  a  multijjlicity  of  Gods ;  that  the 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  originally  God,  as  not  receiving  his 
eternal  being  from  any  other.  Wherefore  it  necessarily  followeth, 
that  Jesus  Ch-ist,  who  is  certainly  not  the  Father,  cannot  be  a  person 
subsisting  in  l.'.-.>  divine  nature  originally  of  himself;  and  consequently, 
being  .  .  .  iruly  and  properly  the  eternal  God,  he  must  be  understood 
to  have  the  Gof Jiead  communicated  to  him  by  the  Father,  who  is  not 
only  eternally,  1  lut  originally,  God.  —  Bishop  Pearson  :  Exposition 
of  the  Creed,  Art.  I.  p.  48;  Art.  II.  pp.  190-1. 

In  that  state  of  his  existence  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  our 
blessed  Faviour  was  partiiker  of  the  divine  glory  and  happiness.  He 
was  not  God  the  Father,  who  is  the  Principle  and  Fountain  of  the 
Deit}' ;  [but]  he  was  God  by  participation  of  the  divine  nature  and 
happiness  together  with  the  Father,  and  by  way  of  derivation  from 
him,  as  the  light  is  froni  the  sun.  —  Abridged  from  ARCHBISHOP 
TiLLOTSON :  Sermon  43 ;  in  Jforks,  vol.  iii.  pp.  185-6. 

What  it  [the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son]  signifies  we  know  not 
any  fuither  than  this,  that  it  is  the  eternal  communiciition  of  the  nature 
and  image  of  the  Father  to  him,  as  an  earthly  parent  communicates 

his  own  nature  and  likeness  to  his  son As  for  this  expression, 

"  the  one  true  God,"  it  is  never  attributed  to  Son  or  Holy  Ghost,  that 
I  know  of,  either  in  Scrij>ture  or  any  catholic  writer,  though  it  is  to 
the  Father,  whom  our  Saviour  himself  calls  "  the  only  true  God ; "  for 
all  three  divine  persons,  as  in  conjunction  with  each  other,  being  the 
one  only  true  God,  this  title  cannot  so  properly  be  attributed  to  any 
one  ])erson,  but  only  the  Father,  who  is  the  Fountain  of  the  Deity.  — 
Ur.  William  Sherlock  :  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
pjj.  16,  89. 

Referring  to  the  latter  of  these  passages,  Dr.  South  (in  his  "Animadver- 
sions," p.  135)  says:  "  Whence  I  infer  that  then  neither  can  the  expression 
of '  God,'  or  '  the  true  God,'  be  properlv  attributed  to  the  Son  or  to  tlie  Holy 
Gliost;  forasnuicii  as  the  terms  'one  God'  and  'one  true  God,'  or  'one  only 
true  God,'  are  equivalent;  the  term  'one  God'  including  in  it  every  whit  as 
inucli  as  the  term  '  one  true  God  '  or  'one  only  true  God,'  and  the  term  '  one 
true  God,'  or  '  one  only  tnie  God,'  including  in  it  no  more  than  the  terra 
'  one  God.'  "  —  This  witty  and  sarcastic  divine  is  much  displeased  with  Dr. 
Sheki  ock  for  making  an  admission  from  which  the  inference  may  be 
drav.n  that  Christ  can  in  no  proper  sense  be  called  God,  and  says  that 
Sherlock  "  selddm  turns  his  pen  but  he  gives  some  scui-vy  stroke  at  it." 

35 


410  AS   A   DIVINE   BEIXO, 

All  power  and  all  knowledge  are  expressly  ascribed  to  the  Son  of 
God  in  several  plain  passages.  .  .  .  The  tenns  "Father"  and  "Son" 
convey  to  us  no  meaning,  if  they  do  not  imply  that  the  one  derived 
his  being  from  the  other ;  and  this  is  confirmed,  when  we  road  that 
the  Son's  power  and  glory  and  dominion  were  all  given  him  by  the 
Father.  —  Dr.  W.  S.  Powell:  Ciwrge  III.;  in  Discourses,  p.  215. 

I  know  that  I  have  you  [the  grave  Unitarian  of  the  older  school] 
on  my  side,  becixuse  you  are  the  principal  evidence  for  what  I  have 
been  maintaining.  You  never  have  made  up  your  mind  to  abandon 
the  name  "  Son  of  God."  You  find  it  in  the  Gospels.  Your  desire 
to  assert  the  letter  of  them,  against  what  you  supj)ose  our  figumtive 
and  mystical  interpreUitions,  forces  you  to  admit  the  phrase.  You 
ir&t  only  do  so,  but  you  make  the  most  of  it.  You  quote  all  the 
passiiges  in  which  Christ  declares  that  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
himself,  that  the  Father  is  greater  than  he,  as  decisive  ag-ainst  the 
doctrine  of  our  creeds.  You  do  a  vast  service  by  msisting  upon  them, 
by  compelling  us  to  feike  notice  of  them.  They  are  not  merely  chance 
sentences,  CiU'elessly  thrown  out,  hiconsistent  with  otiiers  which  occur 
in  the  same  books.  You  are  right  in  affirming  that  they  contxiin  the 
key  to  the  life  of  Christ  on  earth.  You  have  suggested  the  thouglit 
to  us,  —  you  could  not,  consistently  with  jour  scheme,  bring  it  for- 
ward, but  it  was  latent  in  your  argument,  —  that  what  he  was  on 
^erth  must  be  the  explanation  of  what  he  is.  Never  cm  I  thank  you 
♦inough  for  these  hints,  tor  the  help  they  have  been  to  me  in  ajipre- 
nending  the  sense  and  connection  of  tliose  words  which  you  cast  aside. 
If  the  idea  of  subordination  in  the  Son  to  the  Father,  which  you  so 
strongly  urge,  is  once  lost  sight  of,  or  considered  an  idle  and  unimpor- 
tant school-tenet,  the  morality  of  the  gospel  and  its  divinity  disajjpear 
together.  You  have  helped  to  keep  aUve  in  our  minds  the  distinction 
of  the  persons ;  and  that,  I  believe,  is  absolutely  necess;n-y,  that  we 
may  coiiicss  the  miity  of  substance.  —  F.  D.  Mauuice  :  Tli£ologiccd 
Essays,  No.  V.  pp.  70-1, 

Wc  liiive  quoted  more  thiui  is  essentiiil  to  our  ])uri)(>se,  to  avoid  any 
iippearaiicc  of  injustice  to  our  autlior.  Hut  the  small  side-tiirusts  at  the 
"grave  Unitarian"  will  scarcely  niflle  his  skin;  and  the  position,  that, 
because  Christ  is  inferior  to  and  distinct  from  the  Father,  he  must  pf)ssess  a 
nnity  of  substance  with  liim,  tends  certainly  to  give  no  finistiing  blow  to  the 
life  of  Unitarianism.  But  this  is  to  our  purpose:  Mr.  Maukick,  emphati- 
cally agreeing  with  Antitrinitarians  on  this  point,  confesses  the  doctrine  of 
the  gospel  to  be,  that  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  subordinate  to  the  Father. 
If  this  Uinguagu  has  any  meaning,  it  will  follow.  lUi  a  truism,  that  the  Son 


CHRIST   INFEraOR  TO   THE  FATHER.  411 

of  God  is  a  different  being  from  God,  and  cannot  be  put  on  a  perfect  equa- 
lity with  Him  who  is  his  Superior. 

In  his  next  paragraph,  Jlr.  Maurice  takes  in  good  part  the  "  very  strong 
and  earnest  protest"  of  the  Unitarian  "against  idolatry;"  and,  if  we  mis- 
tai<e  not,  he  implies  that,  without  that  protest,  Trinitarians  would  have  been 
liable  to  worsliip  three  Gods,  instead  of  three  distinct  persons,  the  first  of 
whom  properly  ranks,  in  his  conception,  as  Supreme;  but  he  quietly  and 
good-naturedly  turns  round,  and  tells  the  Unitarian  that  he,  too,  needs  to  be 
on  his  guard,  lest,  from  the  sincerity  and  fervency  of  his  admiration,  he  sets 
the  man  Jesus  Christ  "  above  God."  To  every  friendly  suggestion,  let  us 
all,  whether  Trinitarian  or  Unitarian,  give  heed ! 

When  our  Lord  adds,  oiiMg  uyaddc,  el  (ifi  elg  6  i9fof  ["  There  is  none 
good  but  one,  that  is,  God  "],  we  are  to  undersUxnd,  with  Bishops 
Pearson  and  Bull,  the  sense  to  be,  that  there  is  no  being  originally, 
essentially,  and  independently  good,  but  God.  Thus  the  Father,  being 
the  Fountain  of  the  whole  Deity,  must,  in  some  sense,  be  the  Foun- 
tain of  the  goodness  of  the  Son.  Accordingly,  the  Antenicene  fathers 
were  generally  agreed  that  uyadoc  ["good"]  essentially  and  strictly 
applied  only  to  God  the  Father ;  and  to  Christ  only  by  reason  of  the 
goodness  derived  to  him  as  being  "  very  God  of  veiy  God."  —  Dr. 
S.  T.  Bloomfield,  ill  his  Grttk  Testament ;  note  on  Matt.  xix.  17. 

Similarly,  Makesius,  quoted  with  approbation  by  Dr.  Whitby,  and 
followed  by  William  Tkollope. 

"  My  Father  is  greater  than  I."  He  who  imparts  omnipotence 
from  himself  must  sbmd  thus,  in  internal  relation,  to  him  who  receives 
that  omnipotence,  without  derogating  from  the  equality  of  the  power 
imparted ;  as,  even  in  the  capacity  of  human  jiateniity,  there  is  an 
essential  relation  to  sonship,  which  can  only  be  expressed  by  "  greater." 
The  Father  is  still  the  "  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ," 
whether  in  time  or  in  eternity ;  whether  in  our  Lord's  assumed  human 
nature,  or  in  the  mystery  of  his  eternally  generated  divine  nature. 
Though  "  the  Father  has  put  all  things  under  the  feet  of  the  &on,  yet 
it  is  manifest,"  as  St.  Paul  reasons,  "  that  He  is  excepted  who  did  put 
all  things  under  him."  These,  therefore,  are  "  the  great  God,  and  our 
Saviour,"  described  in  Tit.  ii.  13.  —  Granville  Penn  on  John  xiv.  28 ; 
in  SiippL  Annotations  to  the  Book  of  the  J^ew  Covenant,  p.  06. 

A  volume  of  extra -^ts  of  a  similar  character  might  easily  be  made;  but 
the  above,  with  those  previously  given  in  pp.  392-6,  will  suffice  to  show, 
that,  even  granting  the  antiscriptural  doctrine  of  Christ's  possessing  a  truly 
divine  nature  and  most  of  the  divine  attributes,  we  must,  on  the  showing  of 
many  learned  Trinitarians,  regard  him  as  inferior  to  the  universal  Father. 


412  AS  A  PRE-EXISTENT  BEINQ, 

§   2.     As   A    PltE-KXIS^  TENT    BeIXG,   OR    EVEN    AS    THE    CREATOR    OF    THK 

Wi>i{.:i),  Chkist  xot  xecessakily  God.  « 

The  most  of  his  [Dr.  Bi'SHXell's]  proofs  [of  the  Dignity  of 
Christ]  do  not  reach  the  point  ut  all.  They  merely  prove  that  out 
Saviour  was  superhuman,  jjerhaps  superangelic,  but  not  that  lie  waa 
properly  divine.  For  example,  he  first  argues  the  Divinity  of  Christ 
from  his  pre-existence.  But  this  obviously  does  not  prove  it.  An 
Arian  would  say  that  our  Sa\iour  was  pre-existent.  If  he  had  been  nc 
more  than  an  incarnate  scon  or  angel,  he  must  have  existed  jircA-ious 
to  his  inrarnation.  —  Dr.  Exoch  Pond  :  Review  of  Dr.  Bushnell's 
"  God  in  Christ"  p.  15. 

The  remark  of  this  writer,  that  pre-existence  does  not  prove  Divinity, 
•s  evidently  and  undeniably  correct.  But,  if  so  acute  and  liberal  a  reasoner 
as  Dr.  BusnNKLL  loses  sight  of  this  simple  truth,  we  may  expect  tl'.at  others 
of  stronger  prejudices  and  less  judgment  will  regard  all  texts  which  seem 
to  imply  Christ's  existence  before  his  appearance  on  earth  as  equivalent  to 
proofs  of  his  divine  nature. 

It  appears  to  me  upon  all  occasions  most  unbecoming  and  pre- 
sumptuous for  us  to  say  what  God  can  do,  and  what  he  Cixnnot  do ; 
and  I  shall  never  think  that  the  truth  or  the  importance  of  a  -nnclu- 
sion  warrants  any  degree  of  irreverence  in  the  method  of  alliinm.g 
it.  The  power  exerted  in  making  the  most  insignificant  object  out 
of  nothing  by  a  word  is  manifestly  so  unlike  the  greatest  human 
exertions,  that  we  have  no  hesiuition  in  })ronouncing  that  it  could 
not  proceed  from  the  strength  of  man ;  and  when  we  take  into  \iew 
the  immense  extent  and  magnificence  and  beauty  of  the  things  thus 
created,  the  different  orders  of  sjm-its,  as  well  as  the  frame  of  the 
material  world,  our  conceptions  of  the  power  exerted  in  crea«^'on  are 
infinitely  exalted.  But  we  have  no  means  of  judging  whether  this 
[lower  must  be  exerted  immediately  by  God,  or  whether  it  may  be 
delegated  by  him  to  a  creature.  It  is  ccrtiiin  that  God  has  no  need 
of  any  minister  to  fulfil  his  pleasure,  lie  may  do  by  himself  every 
thing  that  is  done  throughout  the  universe.  Yet  we  see  that  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  providence  he  withdraws  himself,  and  employs  the 
ninistry  of  other  beings ;  and  we  believe,  that,  at  the  first  ai)])eanince 
of  the  gospel,  men  were  enabled,  by  the  divine  power  residing  in  them, 
to  perform  miracles,  t.e.  such  works  as  man  Ciinnot  do,  —  to  cure  the 
most  ii  veterate  diMnises  by  a  word,  without  any  application  of  human 
art;  n.d  :o  ra>se  the  dead.     Although  none  of  these  acts  imply  a 


CHRIST   NOT   NECESSARILY   GOD.  413 

power  equal  to  creation,  yet,  as  all  of  them  imply  a  power  more  than 
human,  they  destroy  the  general  principle  of  that  argument  upon 
which  creation  is  made  an  unequivocal  proof  of  Deity  in  him  who 
creates ;  and  it  becomes  a  very  uncertain  conjecture,  whether  reasons 
perfectly  unknown  to  us  might  not  induce  the  Almighty  to  exert,  by 
the  ministry  of  a  creature,  powers  exceeding  in  any  given  degree 
those  by  which  the  apostles  of  Jesus  raised  the  dead.  —  Dr.  George 
Hill  :  Lectures  in  Divinity,  pp.  333-4. 

We  perfectly  coincide  in  these  sentiments,  but,  with  the  writer,  think 
"  there  is  a  strong  probability,"  as  will  be  shown  in  a  future  volume,  "  that 
the  work  of  creation  was  not  accoinplislied  by  any  creature."  If,  however, 
it  be  necessary  to  understand  the  Introduction  to  John's  Gospel,  and  other 
passages,  to  refer  personally  to  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Creator  of  the  material 
universe,  we  are  led  to  think,  from  the  general  acceptation  of  the  Greek 
preposition  dia,  "  through,"  in  the  New  Testament,  and  from  numberless 
j)laces  which  represent  our  Lord  as  the  agent  or  instrument  of  the  Almighty, 
that  he  must  have  acted  in  this  work  as  indeed  a  being  extraordinary  in 
power,  but  stil!  infinitely  subordinate  to  his  God  and  Father,  whom  he  uni- 
formly exhibited  in  the  character  of  a  Superior,  and  of  whom  he  was  the 
Servant  and  the  Messenger.  See  "  Scripture  Proofs  and  Scriptural  Illustra- 
tions of  Unitarianism,"  part  i.  chap.  2,  sect.  1  (8),  and  sect.  2  (10-13). 

I  think  I  have  a  riglit  to  demand,  that,  unless  jou  can  show  cause 
to  the  contrary,  you  should  adopt  the  translation  of  6cu.  as  the  instru- 
mental cause  in  John  i.  3,  Heb.  i.  2,  and  Col.  i.  16 ;  and,  if  so,  confess 
that  Christ  was  instrumental  in  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  therefore 
that  he  pre-existed  at  least.  —  Bishop  Longley  :  T%e  Brothers' 
Controversy,  p.  49. 

This  passage  [Col.  i.  16,  17]  is  somewhat  stronger  than  the  others 
[1  Cor.  viii.  6,  and  Heb.  i.  3].  Yet  not  any  of  them  seem  decisive  as 
to  the  question  whether  full  and  supreme  Divinity,  Uke  that  of  tlig 
Father,  belongs  to  the  Son ;  for  it  is  certainly  not  impossible  to  con- 
ceive of  the  power. to  create  and  to  govern  being  conferred,  and 
exercised  instrumentally ;  an  idea  which  the  form  of  expression  diH 
["through"]  seems  to  indicate.  —  Joseph  Haven,  Jun.,  in  JVew 
Englander  for  February,  1850,  vol.  viii.  (new  series,  vol.  ii.)  p.  9. 


The  passages  of  Scripture  referred  to  above,  and  others  supposed  to 
teach  or  to  imply  the  agency  of  Christ  as  the  Creator  of 'the  universe,  or  as 
ft  pre-existent  being,  will  be  afterwards  treated  of  in  the  order  iu  which 
they  occur  iu  the  Bible 

35' 


414  CHRIST   NOT   THE   LOUD   GOD 


BECr.  IL  —  DEFICIENCY  OF  PROOF   FOR  CHRISTS   EXISTEN'CE   BEFORP 
HIS   ATPEARAKCE   ON   EARIH. 

God,  who  in  various  methods  told 
Ilis  mind  and  will  to  those  of  old, 
Hath  sent  his  Son,  with  truth  and  grace, 
To  teach  us  in  these  latter  days. 

Isaac  Watts. 

\  1.    Christ  not  the  Lord  God,  or  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  who 

APPEARED   TO  THE   PATRIARCHS  AND   THE  PrOPHETS. 

The  question  as  to  the  pre-existence  of  our  Lord  has  but  little  bearing 
on  ^lio  inquiry,  whether  he  be  an  infinite  being,  and  one  of  the  persons  in 
I.,  .^jduead;  for,  however  high  in  rank,  nature,  or  qualifications,  no  one 
could  be  underived,  or  be  absolute  in  his  perfections,  unless  he  had  been 
prior  to  all  creation,  or  to  production  of  any  kind.  But,  when  texts  of 
Scripture  that  are  thouglit  to  imply  the  existence  of  Christ  prior  to  his  birth 
are  read  ami  explained  as  if  they  involved  the  dogma  of  his  divine  nature, 
it  may  be  well  to  show,  that  some,  if  not  all,  of  them  are  susceptible  of  an 
interpretation  which  harmonizes  better  with  the  unequivocal  language  of 
Peter  and  Paul,  and  of  Jesus  himself,  that  he  was,  not  only  in  appearance, 
but  in  reality,  a  "  man." 

Whenever  it  is  said  that  God  api)eared  to  Jacob,  or  redeemed  bin., 
the  meaning  is,  that  God  operates,  not  immediately,  but  by  the  instru- 

menUility  of  an  angel Some,  who  look  very  superficially  on  Sacred 

Scripture,  assert  that  this  is  to  be  understood  of  the  Messiah,  — 
Al)ndged  from  BlsilOP  TosTAT  on  Gen.  xlviii.  15,  16. 

When  God  is  said  to  "  appear  "  to  any  of  the  patriarchs,  we  are  not 
6o  to  understand  it  as  if  they  had,  or  could  have,  a  visible  rcpresentiition 
of  him ;  but  only  that  he  signified  his  will  unto  them  either  in  a  vision, 
or  by  some  sign,  or  by  an  angel.  If  they  understood  that  the  mess;ige 
was  from  heaven,  the  "Lord  God"  was  .s;ud  to  have  "apjicared"  to 
them ;  but  that  appellation  respects  not  the  appearance  itself,  the  visible 
rejjresentation,  but  is  the  title  of  the  Supreme  Being,  whose  will  was 
revealed  unto  them.  Or,  if  the  [Arian]  translation  may  be  admitted, 
then  "the  Jehovah  of  God"  c;ui  mean  only  the  angel  of  the  Lord, 
without  any  foundation  for  suj)jjosing  it  to  mean  the  Lord  Christ  — 
Dr.  Benjamin  Dawson:  Jllnslration  of  Tcit.i,  j).  8. 

It  is  often  said,  that  the  Lord,  tlie  Most  High  God,  "appeared  "  to 
the  ijutriarchs,  to  Moses,  and  tf    the  propiiets,  the  ancestors  of  the 


WHO   APPEARED   TO   MOSES   AND   OTHERS.  415 

Jews;  but,  according  to  Jesus  Christ's  rule  [John  v.  37],  the  appear- 
ance, form,  or  shape  which  thej'  saw  was  not  the  appearance  of  the 
Lord  God  himself;  for  never,  at  any  time,  did  they  see  his  shape. 
Again,  it  is  often  said  that  the  Most  High  God  spake  to  the  patriarclis, 
to  Moses,  and  to  the  prophets ;  but  our  Lord  affirms  that  they  never 
heard  liis  voice  at  any  time.  How  shall  we  reconcile  this  seeming 
inconsistency  ?  The  true  solution,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  this ; 
that  the  Lord  God  nevex  spake  or  appeared  in  person,  but  always  by 
a  proxy,  nuncius,  or  messenger,  who  represented  him,  and  spake  in 
his  name  and  authority.  It  was  this  messenger  of  Jehovah,  or  angel 
of  Jehovah,  who  appeared  unto  Moses,  Exod.  iii.  2,  and  who  is  called, 
in  ver.  4,  "  Jehovah  "  or  Lord  (whence  it  is  evident  that  he  was  no 
created  human  being)  ;  and  who  spake  to  Moses,  in  ver.  5,  saying, 
"  Draw  not  nigh  hither,"  &c. ;  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,"  ver.  6  ; 
and  "  I  am  that  I  am,"  ver.  14.  All  which  words  were  pronounced 
by  an  angel,  but  are  true,  not  of  the  angel,  but  of  God,  whom  he 
represented.  So  a  herald  reads  a  proclamation  in  the  king's  name 
and  words,  as  if  the  king  himself  were  speaking.  The  word  "  Angel," 
both  in  the  Greek  language  and  in  the  Hebrew,  signifies  "  a  messen- 
ger," or  nuncius,  "  an  ambassador ;  "  one  who  acts  and  speaks,  not  in 
his  own  name  or  behalf,  but  in  the  name,  person,  and  behalf  of  him 
who  sends  him.  Thus  the  word  is  fi-equently  rendered  in  our  autho- 
rized transLition ;  and  if  it  had  always  been  rendered  "  the  messenger 
of  the  Lord,"  instead  of  "  the  angei  of  the  Lord,"  the  case  would  have 
been  very  plain.  —  Dk.  T.  Haktwell  Horxe  :  Introduction  to  the 
Study  of  the  Holif  Scriptures,  part  ii.  book  ii.  chap.  7,  sect.  6,  12. 

Alany  of  tlie  Christian  fathers,  who  unfortunately  caught  the  pas- 
sion of  allegorizing  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  of  converting  them  on  all 
occasions  into  spiritual  mysteries,  from  the  later  Platonists,  the  example 
of  Philo,  and  the  practice  of  the  Jewish  Rabbis,  have  considered  "  the 
angel,"  in  this  remarkable  passage  [Exod.  iii.  2],  as  the  second  person 
of  the  Holy  Trinity ;  and  this  ojiinion  seems  to  have  been  too  hastily 
adopted  by  some  of  our  best  commentators  and  old  divines.  On  a 
critical  examination  of  the  text,  it  will  appear  perhaps  that  there  is 
nothing  to  favor  this  mode  of  interpretiition  but  the  zealous  desire  of 
proving,  on  all  possible  occasions,  the  pre-existent  stiite  of  the  ever- 
sacred  Messiah.  To  the  usual  interpretation  of  this  passage,  there  are, 
among  others,  the  following  objections :  1.  The  prepositive  article,  or 
emphatic  prefix,  iT,  in  Hei)rew  is  omitted  before  TisiTC.  —  2.  In  refer- 
ring to  this  remarkable  incident,  the  proto-martjr  Stephen  says.  Acts 


416  CHRIST   NOT   '-THE   ANGEL   OF  JEHOVAH" 

vii.  30,  "  There  appeared  to  liini,"  i.e.  Moses,  "  in  the  wilderness  of 
Mount  Shia,  an  angel  of  the  Lord."  The  definite  article  "the,"  there- 
fore, has,  on  this  and  other  occasions,  been  improperly  used  in  our 
translation.  —  3.  Much  stress  has  been  laid  on  the  words  of  the 
original,  nin"]  ~S|!3'2)  "an  angel  of  Jehovah;"  but  it  is  used  also  to 
denote  the  angel  that  "  smote  the  Assyrians,"  2  Kings  xix.  35,  whose 
destruction  all  commentiitors  now  ascribe  to  the  operation  of  a  phy- 
si&il  cause  in  the  hand  of  God ;  and  it  is  employed  to  designate  the 
angel  "  that  came  up  from  Gilgal  to  Bochim,"  Judg.  ii.  1,  where  our 
translators  have  ])roj)erly  rendej-ed  it  "  an  angel  of  the  Lord,"  and 
put  "  messenger "  in  tiie  margin,  —  5.  A  more  powerful  objection 
arises  from  the  reference  which  our  blessed  Lord  himself  makes  to  this 
very  passage,  where  he  tells  the  Jews,  that  the  declaration,  "  I  am  the 
God  of  Abraham  and  the  God  qf  Isaac  and  the  God  of  Jacob,"  was 
spoken  by  God,  that  is,  by  divine  communication,  without  precisely 
defining  the  manner  in  which  the  Jews  understood  that  foi-m  of 
expression.  Now,  had  the  Messiah  himself  been  the  speaker  on  this 
occasion,  in  his  pre-existent  sUite,  would  he  have  said  to  the  Saddu- 
cees,  "  Have  ye  not  read  that  which  was  spoken  unto  you  by  God  ?  " 
Matt.  xxii.  31;  and  would  he  thus  liave  identified  himself  in  name 
and  character  with  the  Father  ?  Those  who  think  this  ])robable  will 
not  find  a  similar  example  throughout  the  whole  of  the  Bible.  —  It 
has  been  said  in  favor  of  the  usiuil  interpretation  of  this  and  other 
divine  ai)pearances  in  the  Old  Test;iment,  that  the  ancient  Jewish 
liahbis  explained  them  by  a  reference  to  their  ex])ected  Messiah.  But 
it  should  be  recollected,  that  the  oldest  of  their  comments  on  the 
Hebrew  Scrijjtures  are  comparatively  of  very  modern  date,  and,  with 
respect  to  doctrines,  are  of  no  authority.  They  imported  from 
Babylon,  and  the  regions  of  their  captivity,  many  notions  respecting 
appearances,  angels,  demons,  and  other  matters,  which  belonged  not 
to  their  ancient  Scri])tures.  On  many  points  of  doctrine,  therefore, 
they  were  ]jrone  to  error  and  Kuj)erstition,  but  more  particularly  on 
tU  occasions  that  related  to  tiieir  ])romised  Messiah.  —  It  is  not  the 
object  of  these  remarks  to  controvert  in  the  least  the  acknowledged 
ioctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of  the  heavenly  Messiah.  The  reality  of 
'.his  doctrine  forms  no  part  of  the  jjresent  question ;  wliich  is,  whether 
our  blessed  Lord,  as  the  second  person  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  ap])eared 
m  his  individual  and  a])pr()i)riute  character  to  Moses  on  the  present 
ocKision,  or  to  any  of  the  jnitriarcbs  Ijcfore  him.  Those  who  tliink 
there  is  no  sullicient  ground  lor  believing  lliis  will  feel  their  opinion 


WHO   APPEARED  TO   MOSES   AND  OTHERS.  417 

strengthened  perhaps  by  the  consideration,  that  it  is  not  recognized  in 
the  Liturgy  or  Articles  of  our  church,  and  that  there  is  no  trace  of 
any  such  doctrine  to  be  found  throughout  the  writings  of  the  evan- 
gelists and  apostles.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
indeed,  says  (chap.  i.  1,  2),  "  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers 
iniuiners  spake  in  times  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath 
in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son."  Now,  as  the  "  last 
da}s  "  meant  that  period  which  commenced  with  the  advent  of  the 
]\Iessiah,  it  is  an  intimation  by  the  apostle,  that  he  had  not  spoken 
to  men  before :  otherwise,  the  nature  of  the  subject  requhed  that 
he  should  have  mentioned  it.  —  Abridged  from  JoHN  Hewlett  : 
Commentaries,  vol.  i.  pp.  286-8,  561-2. 

A  great  number  of  authorities  of  a  similar  nature  might  be  cited ;  but 
the  passages  in  which  divine  or  angelic  appearances  are  spoken  of  in  the 
Old  Testament  will  be  taken  up  in  their  order,  and  explained,  in  the  next 
volume. 

§  2.   Christ's  being  "  sent  "  or  "  proceeding  from  God,"  and  his 
"  coming  down   from   Heaven,"    Phrases   signifying   that   he 

HAD    received    THE    FULLEST    INSTRUCTION    AND    AUTHORITY     FROM 

THE  Father. 

Whatever  we  receive  by  the  special  gift  of  God  is  said  "  to  descend 
from  heaven."  Thus,  John  \i.  58 :  "  This  is  that  bread  which  came 
down  from  heaven."  James  i.  17  :  "Every  good  gift  is  from  above, 
and  cometh  down  from  the  Father  of  lights."  Chap.  iii.  15-17  : 
"  This  wisdom  descendeth  not  from  above,"  &c.  In  accordance  with 
this  sense,  our  Lord  asked  the  Pharisees,  concerning  the  baptism  of 
John,  "  Whence  was  it  P  From  heaven,  or  of  men  ?  "  Matt.  xxi.  25 ; 
and  the  new  Jerusalem  is  said  to  "  come  down  out  of  heaven,  from 
God,"  Rev.  iii.  12.  —  Philip  Limborch  :  Theologia  Christiana, 
lib.  iii.  cap.  15,  §  4. 

When  the  Scriptures  speak  of  Jesus  Christ  being  "  sent "  into  the 
woi-ld,  they  alwa}s  refer  to  his  commission  from  God  to  minister  to 
the  world,  that  is,  to  men ;  and  respect  not  the  time  either  of  his 
birth  or  conception.  In  like  manner,  John  the  Baptist  is  said  to  be 
"  sent  from  God,"  when  he  came  to  preach  the  baptism  of  repentance. 

It  is  very  common  with  our  Lord  to  distinguish  himself  as 

the  MessLih  by  such  like  exjjressions  as  these,  —  of  having  "  seen 
God,"  "  learned  of  God,"  "  proceeded  forth  from  God,"  "  come  down 
from  heaven,"  &c.  t^c.    Which  manner  of  spealdng  has  given  occasion 


/ 

418  IMPORT   OF   CHRTSrS   -'BEING   SENT  FROM   GOD." 

to  divines  to  busy  tlicmselves  about  the  metaphysical  nature  and 
existence  of  Christ.  But  it  is  very  plain  that  these  expressions  can 
have  no  manner  of  reference  thereto,  and  that  from  these  two  con- 
siderations, —  1.  Because,  wlierever  they  occur,  the  context  is  sure  to 
determine  that  our  Lord  speaks  in  reference  to  his  office  on  earth  ; 
2.  Because,  to  suppose  these  exi)ressions  to  relate  to  his  metaphysical 
nature  and  existence,  we  must  be  forced  to  interpret  them  literally ; 
which  would  make  the  greatest  confusion  among  our  ideas,  and  ky 
the  foundation  of  the  most  absurd,  impious,  and  contradictory  opinions 
and  tenets.  Our  Lord,  therefore,  must  mean  by  them  to  assert,  that 
he  alone  had  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the  will  and  counsels  of  God, 
which  no  man  before  him  ever  had ;  that  God  committed  to  him  the 
full  revelation  of  himself,  and  eiuibled  him  to  decbre  and  manifest 
the  one  true  God  to  the  world,  as  clearly  as  if  the  Son  of  man  had 
actually  ascended  up  into  heaven,  and  there  seen  God  and  the  things 
of  the  heavenly  world,  and  then  had  come  down  from  heaven  with 
grace  and  truth,  as  Moses  from  the  mount  with  the  law.  Jesus 
Clirist,  having  such  knowledge  and  revelation  of  the  will  of  God  as 
this,  together  with  all  power  and  judgment,  doth  with  the  utmost 
propriety  use  these  expressions  concerning  himself,  and  that  by  way 
of  appropriation  and  prerogative  not  belonging  to  Moses,  John  tlie 
Baptist,  or  any  of  the  prophets ;  who,  though  true  jjropliets,  were  still 
not  from  heaven,  but  of  the  earth,  —  brought  not  that  heavenly  light 
which  was  the  life  of  men.  Li  God  only  was  this  life,  and  with  him 
was  it  hid  from  the  foundation  of  the  world ;  neither  did  it  shine  forth 
to  the  world  till  the  coming  of  Christ,  or  the  manifesUUion  of  God  in 
the  Hesh.  —  Biivjamin  Dawsjn  :  Illustration  of  Texts  of  Scripture, 
p]).  G,  7  ;   104-6. 

The  work  from  which  we  have  just  quoted  forms  the  substance  of  eisjht 
sermons  preuched  in  the  Catiiednd  Cliurch  of  St.  Paul,  in  the  years  1704 
arul  1765,  by  permission  of  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London,  for  the  Lecture 
founded  by  Lady  Mover.  Dr.  D.vwsoN  w;is  a  zealous  but  liberal  adherent 
oC  the  church  of  Enjiland,  wiio  in  his  own  way  defended  this  her  dogma, 
that  "  in  unitj-  of  the  Godliead  there  be  three  persons  of  one  substance, 
power,  and  eternitv;  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  But, 
though  throughout  the  work  he  strenuously  opposes  the  opinions  held  by 
Arians  and  Socinians  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  his 
interpretations  of  texts  adduced  in  the  controversy  on  this  subject  are,  in 
general.  Unitarian;  and,  witli  the  exception  sometimes  of  a  |)eculiar  phra- 
seology, might  well  be  followed  by  u  bel'^ver  iu  the  simple  humanity  of 
oar  Lord. 


CHJilST'S  DIVINE  SONSHIP.  419 


SECT.  111.  —  CIIKIST  S  SONSHIP  NOT  IMPLYING  AN  ESSENTIALLl 
DIVINE  NATURE,  BUT  HIS  BEING  THE  MESSUH,  HIS  MORAI 
KESEMBLANCE  TO   GOD,   AND   GOD'S   LOVE  TOWARDS   HIM. 

Behold  the  Prince  of  Peace! 

The  chosen  of  the  Lord, 
God's  well-beloved  Son,  fulfils 

The  sure  prophetic  word. 

Needham. 

Is  the  appellation  "  Son  of  God,"  by  itself,  an  endent  and  irrefra- 
ga])le  argument  that  the  Son  is  truly  a  partaker  of  the  same  divine 
nature  with  the  Father?  We  answer:  If  this  appellation  alone  be 
considered,  and  no  regard  had  to  other  Scripture  passages  by  which 
the  Deity  of  the  Son  is  established,  it  may  be  clearly  shown  to  be 
insufficient  to  prove  this  doctrine ;  for  it  is  certain,  that,  on  account 
of  the  gracious  communication  of  the  divine  majesty,  the  title  "  Son  of 
God  "  is  attributed  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  respect  to  his  human 
nature.  —  Philip  Limborcii  :  Theol.  Christ.,  Ub.  i.  cap.  17,  §  10. 

That  the  title  "  Son  of  God,"  when  applied  to  Jesus  our  Lord  and 
Saviour,  is  the  same  as  "  Christ,"  the  Ambassador  of  God,  sent  by  him 
for  our  salvation,  no  one  can  doubt  who  consults  those  passages  in 
which,  in  themselves,  of  with  others  compared  together,  either  the 
•word  "  Christ "  is,  by  way  of  interpretation,  connected  with  "  Son  of 
God,"  as  Matt.  xvi.  16;  xxvi.  63.  Luke  iv.  41.  John  i.  49;  —  or  for 
this  name,  found  in  one  text,  is  substituted  in  another  the  name 
"  Christ,"  as  Matt,  xxvii.  40,  43,  comp.  Mark  xv.  32.  1  John  v.  1, 
comp.  ver.  5  and  chap.  iv.  2 ;  —  or  the  phrases  "  Son  of  God  "  and 
"  Son  of  man  "  are  interchanged,  as  Mark  xiv.  6 1,  comp.  ver.  62  and 
Matt.  xxvi.  63,  64.  John  v.  25,  comp.  ver.  27  ;  —  or  the  Son  of  God 
is  so  described  that  to  him  are  attril)uted  what  Avould  be  unsuitable 
unless  applied  to  him  as  a  man,  an  insUmce  of  which  occurs  in  Luke 
i.  32,  seq.  ...  I  know  of  no  passage  in  Sacred  Scrijjture  in  which  this 
title  can  be  understood  of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ.  —  J.  Augustus 
NossELT :  Exerc.  ad  S.  Scripturarum  biterpretationem,  pp.  130-1. 

We  hold  it  to  be  clear  from  the  import  of  the  tierms  employed, 
and  from  the  context  of  innumerable  passages,  that  this  name,  "  the 
Son  of  God,"  is  applied  to  Jesus  as  a  man,  and  applied  to  him  for  this 
reason,  among  others,  that  he  was  "  the  image  of  the  in\isible  God," 
and  intimately  united  with  liim,  as  well  as  the  object  of  his  sjiecial 


420  CHRIST'S  DIVINE  SONSUIP 

favor.  Every  child  knows,  that,  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  men  are 
often  CiiUed  the  sons  of  God,  on  account  of  some  remarkable  connec- 
tion with  the  Deity,  or  because  they  in  some  sense  resembled  God 
himself.  Now,  is  it  not  evident  that  all  these  reasons  join  in  one  to 
render  the  name  in  question  pre-eminently  api)Hcahle  to  tlirtt  man  who 
sustiilned  a  relation  to  the  Deity  wliich  no  prophet  ever  had  sustiiined 
(John  i.  14 ;  x.  38 ;  xiv.  10) ;  and  who,  as  the  Scriptures  explicitly 
ini'orni  us,  was  the  image  of  the  Father  (Col.  i.  15),  and  beloved 
above  all  the  other  sons  of  God?  Matt.  xvii.  5.  Col.  i.  13.  John 
iii.  3o.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  thei-efore,  that  the  title  Son  of  God 
would  have  been  perfectly  appropriate  to  Jesus,  considered  merely  as 
a  man.  And  it  is  no  less  clear  that  this  interpretiition  harmonizes 
fully  with  the  context  of  many  passages ;  such  as  Heb.  i.  5.  Horn. 
viii.  29,  32 ;  but  particularly  John  x.  31,  a  text  often  cited  to  oppugn 
our  doctrine.  —  J.  F.  Flatt  :  Dissertation  on  the  Deity  of  Christ ;  in 
Biblical  Repertory  for  1829,  new  series,  vol.  i.  pp.  170-1. 

The  term  "  to  beget "  denotes,  in  many  jiassages,  not  the  commu- 
niciition  of  the  divine  nature  to  the  Son  of  God,  but  his  appointment 
to  the  kingly  office,  or  the  Messiahship.  Thus  the  passage,  Ps.  ii.  7, 
"  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee,"  though  often  cited 
in  the  New  Testament,  is  never  brought  to  prove  the  divine  nature  of 
the  Son  of  God,  but  is  always  sujjposed  to  refer  to  the  confirmation 
of  his  Messiahship  by  his  resurrection  from  the  dead.  The  same 
might  be  said  of  many  other  passages  in  which  similar  phraseology  is 
used.  —  G.  C.  Knapp  :   Christian  Theology,  sect,  xliii.  111.  (c). 

Dr.  Knapp  adds  that  "  the  name  Sou  of  God  ia,  in  some  psissages,  given 
to  Christ  ill  designation  of  liis  liigher  nature,  his  equality  witli  the  Fatlier, 
atid  his  internal  relation  to  him;"  but,  by  tiie  aid  of  other  orthodox  com- 
mentator;:, we  intend  to  show,  in  future  volumes,  tiie  utter  lack  of  proof 
for  supposing  that  in  any  one  passage  it  is  used  to  indicate  a  divine  essence 
in  Christ. 

According  to  Matt.  i.  20,  laike  i.  35,  Jesus  was  born  into  the 
world  in  such  a  manner  as  no  other  ever  was ;  and,  if  aj)i)lied  to  this 
circumstance,  I  see  nothing  improper  in  retiiiuing  the  coumion  ver- 
sion ["  only-begotten  "].  The  term  [/lovoytvi/g],  however,  may  admit 
the  sense  of  "  dearly  beloved,"  or  "  well-beloved."  John  only  uses  the 
term  in  reference  to  our  Lord.  The  Septuagint  use  it  for  T'n'j', 
Ps.  xxii.  20;  xxxv.  17;  and  often  render  the  siime  word  uyanrjTd^, 
"  beloved,"  Gen.  xxii.  2,  12,  16.  Jer.  vi.  26.  Amos  viii.  10.  Zech. 
xii.  10.  —  Dk.  Ukxja.min  Bootiiuoyu  on  John  i.  14. 


INDICATING   OFFICIAL  AND  MORAL  QUALITIES.  421 

Hera  I  trust  I  may  be  permitted  to  say,  with  all  clue  respect  for 
those  who  differ  from  me,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  Sonship  of 
Christ  is,  in  my  opinion,  antiscriptural  and  highly  dangerous.  This 
doctrine  I  reject  for  the  following  reasons :  1.  I  have  not  been  able  to 
find  any  express  declaration  in  the  Scriptures  concerning  it.  2.  If 
Christ  be  the  Son  of  God  as  to  his  divine  nature,  then  he  cannot  be 
eternal ;  for  "  son  "  implies  a  father,  and  "  fither  "  implies,  in  reference 
to  son,  precedency  in  time,  if  not  in  nature  too.  "  Father  and  son  " 
imply  the  idea  of  generation ;  and  "  generation  "  implies  a  time  in  which 
it  was  effected,  and  time  also  antecedent  to  such  generation.  3.  If 
Christ  be  Son  of  God  as  to  his  divine  nature,  then  the  Father  is  of  ne- 
cessity prior,  consequently  superior,  to  him.  4.  Again,  if  this  divine 
nature  were  begotten  of  the  Father,  then  it  must  be  in  time ;  that  is, 
there  was  a  period  in  which  it  did  not  exist,  and  a  period  when  it  began 
to  exist.  This  destroys  the  eternity  of  our  blessed  Lord,  and  robs  him 
at  once  of  his  Godhead.  5.  To  say  that  he  was  begotten  from  all 
eternity  is,  in  my  opinion,  absurd ;  and  the  phrase  "  eternal  Son  "  is 
a  positive  seK-contradiction.  "  Eternity  "  is  that  which  has  had  no 
beginning,  nor  stands  in  any  reference  to  time.  "  Son "  supposes 
time,  generation,  and  father,  and  time  also  antecedent  to  such  genera- 
tion. Therefore  the  conjunction  of  these  two  terms,  "  Son "  and 
"  eternity,"  is  absolutely  impossible,  as  they  imply  essentially  different 
and  opposite  ideas.  —  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  on  Luke  i.  35. 

When  Christ  is  called  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  bright- 
ness of  the  Father's  glorj-,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person,  i.e.  of 
him ;  or  the  only-begotten  of  the  Father,  the  Son  of  God ;  God's  own 
Son ;  God's  beloved  Son ;  his  dear  Son,  &c.,  —  I  understand  all  this 
phraseology  as  descriptive  of  his  mediatoi-ial  nature  and  station.  I 
know,  indeed,  that  many  of  these  texts  have  been  appropriated  by 
some  Trinitarians  to  prove  the  divine  nature  of  Christ :  in  my  ap- 
prehension, however,  this  has  been  done  injudiciously,  and  Avithout 
any  solid  reason.  Texts  of  this  class  may  be  found :  Matt.  xvii.  5. 
John  i.  14;  x.  36;  xiv.  10;  iii.  35.    Col.  i.  13.    Heb.  i.  5.    llom.  viii. 

29,  32 As  Mediator,  as  Messuih,  Christ  was  sent  into  the 

world ;  as  Son,  he  filled,  and  acted  in,  a  subordinate  capacity :  how, 
then,  a\n  his  being  Son  in  such  a  sense  prove  him  to  be  divine  ? 
.  .  .  Commonly  and  appropriately,  it  [the  term  Son  of  God]  designates 
the  incarnate  Messiah,  as  born  in  a  manner  supernatural,  Luke  i.  35, 
comp.  iii.  38 ;  as  the  special  object  of  divine  love,  Matt.  xvii.  5.  Col. 
i.  13.  John  iii.  35  ;  and  as  exhibiting  the  best  and  highest  resemblance 

36 


422  CHRIST'S  DIVINE  SONSHIP 

of  the  Father,  Col.  i.  15.  Heb,  i.  3.  John  i.  14;  x.  38;  xlv.  10. 
Would  theoloji^ians  keep  these  ideas  in  ^■ie\v,  I  cannot  help  thinLng 
they  might  be  able  to  understixnd  each  other  better,  and  to  reason 
more  conclusively.  —  Moses  Stuart  :  Letters  to  Charming ;  in 
Miscellanies,  pp.  158-9,  164-5. 

The  writer,  however,  says  that  the  apostles  sometimes  use  the  term  Sou 
of  God  as  a  proper  name,  and  as  designating  a  distinction  in  the  Godhead 
which  he  believes  to  be  eternal;  but,  judging  from  Heb.  i.  1-3,  the  only 
passage  he  refers  to  in  proof  of  his  opinion,  we  may  without  hesitation 
affirm,  that  the  meaning  which  he  himself  attaches  to  the  title  in  the  above 
extract,  as  implying  Christ's  "  resemblance  to  the  Father,"  is  far  more  pro- 
bable, and  that  the  apostles  had  no  belief  whatever  in  eternal  distinctions 
in  the  essence  of  God. 

There  is  a  very  large  class  of  texts,  which,  either  directly  or  by 
imjjlication,  make  the  Son  of  God  inferior  to  the  Father,  and  depend- 
ent from  him.  1.  The  Son  prays  to  the  Father,  John  xvii.  1 ;  xi.  41. 
lie  prays  as  the  Son ;  prays  that  he  may  be  glorified  or  honored  by 
the  Father  as  the  Son.  This  certainly  implies  that  as  the  Son  he  is 
dependent.  2.  He  avows  his  inferiority  to  the  Father,  and  his  de- 
pcndonce  from  him :  John  xiv.  28.  Mark  x'lii.  32.  John  v.  19.  Matt 
XX.  23.  3.  When  the  Son  claims  authority  and  power,  he  always 
re]nesents  them  as  received  by  donation  from  the  Father,  and,  con- 
sequently, not  originally  and  essentially  his  own  :  Matt.  xi.  27  ;  xxviii. 
18.  John  v.  26,  27;  vi.  57;  viii.  54;  x.  18;  xvii.  2,  3,  6.  4.  The 
Son  is  subordinate  and  subject  to  the  Father :  John  vi.  38-40 ;  xii. 
49,  50 ;  xvii.  4 ;  iii.  16.  5.  It  was  the  Son  of  God  that  was  given ; 
the  Son  that  was  sent ;  the  Son  that  was  born,  that  agonized  in  Geth- 
semane,  that  died  ujjon  the  cross,  that  was  raised  from  the  dead  by 
the  Father,  was  exalted  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  was  constituted  the 
head  of  the  church,  &c.  Nothing  of  all  this  can  be  predicated  of 
Divinity ;  and  it  consequently  shows,  that,  as  the  Son  of  God,  Jesus 
is  a  man.  —  The  apostles  have  given  the  same  •siew  of  his  Sonship. 
One  or  two  texts  only  must  suffice  here :  Heb.  v.  5-9.  All  this  [all 
that  is  oxj)ressed  in  this  ])assago]  is  said  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God. 
He  (lid  not  glorify  himself,  Init  was  glorified  by  the  Father;  he  did  not 
constitute  himself  a  ]n-iest,  l)ut  was  tnade  such :  both  his  Sonship  and 
his  priesthood  were  derived  from  the  Father's  good  pleasure.  As  the 
Son,  he  desired  to  be  delivered  from  death ;  as  the  Son,  he  prayed  to 
the  Father,  who  alone  could  save  him  from  it ;  as  the  Son,  he  suffered, 
and  learned  obedience  by  his  sufferings;  as  the  Son,  he  was  made 


INDICATING   OFFICIAL  AND  MORAL  QUALITIES.  423 

perfect,  and  was  constituted  the  Author  of  salvation,  by  the  will  of  the 
Father.  Is  it  possible  that  the  inspired  author  who  wiote  these 
things  could  have  thought,  that,  as  the  Son,  Jesus  is  God  ?  Certainly 
not.  Every  sentence  in  this  passage  shows,  that,  with  regard  to  his 
Sonship,  he  considered  him  a  man.  1  Cor.  xv.  24-28 :  Here  the 
apostle  describes  the  glory  of  the  Son  of  God,  in  his  universal  reign 
over  the  creatures  of  God,  as  one  which  God  the  Father  had*  given 
him ;  for  it  is  He  that  put  all  things  under  his  feet ;  and,  in  his 
highest  glory,  he,  as  the  Son,  is  still  subject  to  the  Father,  and  the 
Father  is  all  in  all,  —  all  in  the  Son,  as  well  as  in  every  creature  in 
the  miiverse.  Can  it  be,  that,  when  St.  Paul  gave  this  account  of  the 
Son  of  God,  he  considered  him,  as  the  Son,  dinne  and  equal  with 
the  Father  ?  Certiiinly  not.  .  .  .  We  are  told,  indeed,  that,  masmuch 
as  Jesus  Christ  is  not  called  a  Son,  but  the  Son,  the  use  of  the  definite 
article,  Avhen  the  application  of  the  title  is  made  to  hmi,  shows  that  he 
is  the  Son  of  God  in  a  sense  pecuUar  to  himself,  and  in  which  there 
can  be  no  other  Son  of  God,  and,  consequently,  in  a  sense  in  which  he 
is  equal  with  the  Father*.  But  how  can  this  consequence  follow  ?  A 
son  is  not  necessarily  equal  with  his  father.  In  some  respects,  he 
never  can  be  equal  with  him :  he  must  necessarily  be  younger  than 
his  lather ;  neither  does  the  father  derive  his  existence  from  the  son, 
but  the  son  from  the  lather.  But,  passing  over  this  ground  of  objec- 
tion, we  call  Homer  the  poet,  and  Demosthenes  the  orator,  and  the 
first  William  of  the  kings  of  England  the  conqueror.  Does  this 
phraseology  im])ly  that  there  have  been  no  other  poets  or  orators  or 
conquerors  ?  The  use  of  the  definite  article  with  the  title  Son  of  God, 
when  it  is  apphed  to  Christ,  does  indeed  designate  him  as  sustaining 
the  relation  of  Sonship  in  a  sense  peculiar  to  himself;  but  the  differ- 
ence which  it  marks  between  him  and  other  sons  is  not  a  difference  of 
nature,  but  a  dilference  of  measure.  —  Abridged  from  Dr.  Lewis 
Mayer,  in  the  BiblkaL  Repository  for  January,  1840 ;  second  series, 
voL  iii.  pp.  150-4. 

Amid  all  the  influences  favorable  tc  a  belief  in  the  essential  Deity  of 
Christ,  there  is  perliaps  none  so  paramoant  in  the  orthodox  mind  as  the 
nnscriptural  sense  which  is  attached  to  the  title  "  Son  of  God,"  and  similar 
expressions,  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  our  Lord.  Forgetting  that 
God  is  an  infinite  Spirit  and  a  universal  Parent,  the  Father  of  all  who  have 
been  created  in  his  moral  image,  and  especially  of  those  who  devote  their 
faculties  and  tlniir  lives  to  his  service,  Christians  in  general  have  been  prone 
t-->  form  material  conceptions  respecting  his  nature,  au  1  to  regard  him  in  th« 


424  CUUIST'S  DIVINE  SONSHIP. 

character  of  an  Omnipotent  and  Supreme  Man,  —  the  mightiest,  indeed,  of 
Potentates,  but  still  with  human  passions  and  feelings;  not  as  infinitely 
blessed  in  his  single  and  glorious  being,  but  as  producing  other  existences 
with  an  essence  and  with  attributes  identical  with  his  own,  rejoicing  in  the 
company  of  his  fellows,  of  whom  lie  is  the  Origin  and  Head,  and  holding 
■with  them  converse  and  counsel  of  an  inetTiible  kind.  One  of  these  divine 
persons  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  another  tlie  Holy  Ghost;  each  of  them 
equal  m  nature,  power,  and  glory  with  the  Father,  from  whom  thej'  derived 
their  being  and  their  qualities.  This,  as  has  already  been  at  some  length 
shown,  is  Trinitarianism ;  at  least,  one  of  its  forms,  —  the  Athanasian,  —  that 
•which  has  been  most  commonly  defended  by  divines,  professed  by  the  laity, 
but,  because  contradictory  in  its  language,  not  steadily  and  fully  believed 
by  any  one. 

But  the  idea  of  Christ's  having  been  in  essence  the  Son  of  God,  either 
from  all  eternity  or  for  an  indefinite  and  inconceivable  time  before  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world,  has  been  so  deeply  stamped  into  the  heart  of  Christendom 
by  the  creed  and  "the  catechism,  that,  whatever  doubts  may  be  entertained 
as  to  the  absolute  equality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  there  is  little  or  no 
difficulty  felt  in  supposing  Jesus  to  have  the  same  nature  as  God;  as  little, 
indeed,  as  in  regarding  Isaac  to  possess  the  same  nature  as  his  father,  Abra- 
ham. With  views  of  the  Divinity  so  low  and  so  human  do  men  take  the 
Bible  into  their  hands,  and  despoil  the  titles  "  Son  of  God,"  "  the  only- 
begotten  or  well-beloved  of  the  Father,"  of  all  their  moral  and  celestial 
beauty,  by  investing  them  with  significations  earthly  and  unspiritual. 

Happily,  however,  all  Christians  will  not  be  bound  with  the  bands,  or  be 
compelled  to  read  with  the  glasses,  of  an  Athanasius.  Some  will  cast 
aside  the  swaddling-clothes  of  a  childish  and  semipagan  age,  and,  with  a 
clearer  and  more  heavenly  vision,  discern  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  instead 
of  groping  amid  the  dim  dogmas  and  unrealities  that  issued  from  the  coun- 
cils and  the  schools.  Fraught  with  this  free  and  more  simple  spirit  are  the 
sentiments  we  have  just  quoted,  —  sentiments  the  truth  and  excellence  of 
•which,  in  the  main,  must,  we  think,  be  perceived  by  every  dispassionate 
reader  of  the  Bible. 

The  Christ  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  was  no  natural  or  essentia!  Son  of 
God;  no  physical  or  metaphysical  emanation  from  the  Father;  no  eternally 
begotten  person  or  being;  no  srccond  person  of  the  Godhead,  or  of  a  Triune 
Deity;  no  God-man,  possessed  of  properties  destructive  of  each  other;  — 
but  a  man  the  most  highly  chosen  «nd  approved  of  God;  the  divinest  of 
God's  messengers  and  pro]>hets,  raised  up  and  appointed  by  God  to  be  the 
Redeemer  of  the  world;  filled  witii  all  the  exuberance  of  God's  spirit, — 
blo«:sed  by  all  the  tenderness  of  the  Father's  love;  more  than  a  son  of  God, 
because  more  devoted  than  others  to  his  heavenly  Father;  tiik  Son  of  God, 
the  only-bi'gotten  and  best  beloved  of  God,  because  distinguished  above  all 
God's  children  —  whether  prophets  or  philosophers  —  by  a  deeper  insight 
into  God's  designs,  by  a  holier  love  for  his  character,  by  a  more  devout  and 
reverent  submission  to  his  will. 


CURTST  NOT   GOD   IN   THE   HIGHEST   SENSE.  425 


SECT.   IV.  —  CHRIST   NOT    CALLED   "  GOD,"   IN    THE    HIGHEST    SENSE 
OF   THE  TEKM. 

A  god  on  earth  thou  art.  —  Shakspeare. 

In  a  figurative  sense,  ■dsbc  ["  God  "]  signifies  "  he  who  acts  by  the 
authority  and  command  of  God ;  he  who  on  the  eaith  represents 
the  Deity."  Thus  magistrates  and  judges  are  called  "  gods,"  John 
X.  34,  35,  comp.  Ps.  Ixxxii.  6.  Exod.  xxii.  28.  Ps.  xcvii.  9 ;  as  also 
angels  and  princes,  1  Cor.  viii.  5.  Exod.  vii.  1.  —  J.  F.  ScHLEUSNER : 
Lexicon  in  JVovum  Teslamentum,  art.  Oeog,  4. 

These  [the  passages  which  apply  to  Christ  the  unqualified  appella- 
tion "  God "]  are  not  decisive  in  the  present  inquiry ;  for  although 
they  imply  divine  honor  in  some  sense,  yet,  as  it  is  possible  the  term 
may  be  employed  in  a  secondary  or  figurative  sense,  they  cannot  be 
appealed  to  as  necessarily  denoting  full  and  supreme  Di\'inity.  — 
Joseph  H.wen,  Jun.,  in  the  JVew  Englander  for  Fehruary,  1850 ; 
vol.  viii.  (new  series,  vol.  ii.)  p.  9. 

To  prevent  mistake,  it  is  but  right  to  state  that  the  author  of  this  extract 
notices  John  i.  1,  3;  Rom.  ix.  5;  1  John  v.  20;  Tit.  ii.  13,  as  texts  which 
speak  of  Christ  as  God  in  the  higliest  sense.  He  says  that  Heb.  iii.  4  is 
"perhaps  justly  regarded  as  somewhat  obscure." 

Psalm  xlv.  6,  and  Heb.  i.  8. 

The  Hebrew  word  tirfii<,  in  the  text,  designates  the  rank  of  a 
judge  and  sovereign ;  as  if  the  Psalmist,  in  connecting  it  with  that 
of  the  "  throne  "  of  the  Messiah,  meant  to  say  that  Jesus  should  be 
appointed  by  his  Father  the  Judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead,  possess 
the  throne  of  David  his  ancestor,  and  reign  over  the  true  Israel  .  .  . 
during  all  eternity.  —  Augustin  Calmet  on  Ps.  xlv.  6. 

It  will  be  proper  to  lay  aside  from  this  discussion  the  consideration 
of  Christ's  divine  nature,  not  because  we  deny  that  doctrine,  or  think 
that  no  regard  should  be  paid  to  it  in  treating  of  the  regal  powe;  of 
Christ,  but  because,  wherever  they  speak  of  him  in  the  character  of  a 
sovereign,  the  sacred  writers  apply  that  imagery  to  him  as  mau.  .  .  . 
We  have  no  hesitation  in.  referring  Ileb.  i.  8,  9,  particularly  to  the 
human  nature  of  Christ,  and,  with  the  distinguished  interpreters  who 
follow  the  great  Grotius,  to  render  6  -Bpovog  gov  6  iSfjf,  "  God  is  thy 

36* 


426  CHRIST  NOT   GOD   IN   THE   niGIEEST   SENSE. 

throne ; "  that  is,  God  has  conferred  on  thee  regal  authority ;  the 
word  "  throne  "  being  used  by  the  metonymy  of  the  sign  for  the  thing 
signified,  and  of  the  effect  for  the  ethcient  aiuse.  Thus  "  throne  "  is 
substituted  for  Him  who  set  Christ  on  the  throne,  just  as  our  Lord 
is  often  called  "  life,"  instead  of  him  Avho  imparts  Ufe ;  and  as  the 
Philippians,  chap,  iv.  1,  are  termed  "  the  joy  and  crown  "  of  Paul, 
because  they  refreshed  his  mind,  and  held  him  in  honor.  In  the 
forty-fifth  Psalm,  from  which  the  quotation  is  talven,  there  are  no 
traces  of  the  Deity  of  Christ ;  and  since  the  words  as  they  occur  in 
this  chapter  of  Paul's,  together  with  the  context,  speak  clearly  of 
Christ's  human  natiu-e,  they  cannot  form  an  address  to  him  as  God.  — 
John  Augustus  Nosselt:  Opuscula,  fasc.  ii.  pp.  355-6,  358-9. 

IsA.  vii.  14,  AND  Matt.  i.  23. 

Here  Christ  is  not  manifestly  called  "  God ;  "  but  the  name  "  Em- 
manuel "  is  given  to  that  son  to  intimate  that  God  would  be  mercifu] 
to  the  human  race.  For  God  is  s;\id  to  be  with  those  whom  he 
Eivors.  —  Er.\SMUS  :  Apologia  ad  J.  Stunicam ;  Op.,  torn.  ix.  p.  3 10. 

The  name  "  Iinmanuel "  denotes  the  certain  aid  of  God  against  the 
Syrians  and  Israelites,  and  his  preservation  of  the  city  in  opposition  to 
Sennacherib.  —  Grotius  on  Isa.  vii.  14. 

There  is  a  presence  of  favor  and  distinction  whereby  God  is  said 
to  be,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  with  those  whom  he  loves  and  blesses 
above  others.  In  this  regard,  the  child  here  spoken  of  is  justly  cilled 
"  Emmanuel,"  because,  as  St.  Paul  speaks,  "  God  was  in  liira  recon- 
ciling the  world  to  himself; "...  and  again,  by  him  they  "  who  were 
sometimes  afar  off  are  made  nigh,  have  access  to  the  Father,  are 
accepted  in  the  Beloved,"  2  Cor.  v.  19.  Eph.  ii.  13,  18,  19 ;  i.  6.  — 
Dr.  George  Stanhope  :  Comment  on  the  Epistles  and  Gospels, 
vol.  iv.  p.  198. 

But  the  dean  afterwards  explains  the  title  as  indicative  of  the  Saviour's 
divine  nature. 

What  you  say  respecting  the  argument  in  favor  of  Christ's  divine 
nature,  from  the  name  given  him  in  Matt.  i.  23,  accords  in  the  main 
with  my  own  views.  To  mainUiin,  as  some  have  done,  that  the  name 
•*  Immanucl  "  proves  the  doctrine  in  question,  is  a  fallacious  argument. 
Is  not  Jerusalem  called  '-'  Jehovah  our  righteousness  "  ?  And  is  Jeru- 
salem divine,  because  such  a  name  is  given  to  it  ?  —  MoSES  Stuart  : 
Letters  to  Chnnning  ,  j?i  Miscellanies,  p.  148. 


CURIST   NOT  GOD   IN   THE   EIGUEST   SENSE.  427 

IsA.  ix..  6. 

This  [viz.,  "  God  "]  is  another  name  by  itself,  and  not  "  the  mighty 
God,"  as  it  is  commonly  rendered;  the  next  word,  "^122,  "mighty" 
or  "  strong,"  being  another  of  his  names.  The  word  ^^,  signifying 
"  God,"  doth  also  signify  "  strong ;  "  but,  because  it  is  most  commonly 
used  when  God  is  spoken  of,  it  is  every whei-e  rendered  "God."  \'et 
from  this  we  cannot  firmly  prove  him  to  be  God,  no  more  than  other 
men  who  have  this  name.  INIoses  was  Aaron's  god ;  and  there  is  so 
much  proof  besides  even  in  this  place,  that  we  need  not  to  argue  from 
hence ;  for  he  that  is  the  everlasting  Father,  and  of  whose  government 
there  is  no  end,  is  God  indeed,  without  beginning  or  end.  —  Abridged 
from  Dr.  John  Mayer  in  loc. 

The  Hebrew  words,  translated,  in  the  common  version,  "  the  everlasting 
Father,"  are  rendered  by  Bishop  Lowth  and  others,  "  the  Fatlier  of  the 
everlasting  age." 

^123  '^a,  "  the  mighty  God,"  —  thus  the  words  signify,  and  in  this 
sense  are  only  true  of  oiu*  Saviour  Jesus  ChrisL  But  ^5|!  has  a  lower 
signification,  and  may  be  rendered  "  potentate ;  "  and  in  this,  which  I 
call  the  first  and  literal  sense,  they  are  applicable  to  Hezekiah.  — 
Samuel,  White  in  loc. 

John  i.  1. 

It  [the  ai)]:)ellatIon  Ti^yoc]  signifies,  among  the  Jews  and  other  an- 
cient people,  when  applied  to  God,  every  thing  by  which  God  reveals 

himself  to  men,  and  makes  known  to  them  his  will In  this  passage; 

tha  principal  proof  does  not  lie  in  the  word  T^yog  ["  revealer  of  God  "], 
nor  even  in  t!ie  word  -{^Eog  ["  God  "],  which  in  a  larger  sense  is  often 
applied  to  kings  and  earthly  rulers,  but  to  what  is  predicated  of  the 
2.6yoc,  viz.,  that  he  existed  from  eternity  with  God ;  that  the  world 
was  made  by  him,  &c.  —  George  C.  Knapp  :  Christian  Thtology, 
sect,  xxxvii.  1. 

Perhaps  no  Scripture  expression  is  more  frequently  adduced,  or  is  quoted 
with  a  greater  air  of  triumph,  on  behalf  of  the  essential  Deity  of  Christ, 
than  this, —  that  "the  word  was  God;"  the  argument  being  founded  on 
two  assumptions:  1.  That  John  applied  the  term  Logos,  "word,"  as  a 
personal  designation  of  our  Lord  before  his  appearance  in  the  flesh;  and, 
2.  That  he  meant  to  call  him  "  God  "  in  the  absolute  or  liighest  sense.  But, 
orthodox  as  Ur.  Knavp  was,  and  unwisely  resting  his  belief  in  part  on  the 
phrase,  "  in  the  beginning,"  which,  as  admitted  by  Professor  Stuakt  and 


428  CHRIST   NOT   GOD   IN   THE  HIGHEST  SENSE. 

otliei-s,  does  not  of  itself  indicate  eternity,  he  frankly  owns  that  the  "  prin- 
cipal proof"  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine  drawn  from  the  passage  does  not 
lie  in  the  words  "  Logos"  and  "  God;"  and,  for  this  admission,  he  assigns 
what  to  us  appears  to  be  a  very  satisfactory  reason. 

John  intends  to  say,  that  the  antemundane  Logos  is  in  such  fellow- 
ship with  God,  stands  in  such  a  relation  to  him,  that  he  may  be  called 
"  God."  II',  now,  there  is  any  historical,  though  it  may  be  a  mediate, 
connection  between  the  represenUxtion  of  John  and  Philo,  then  Ls  x)edc 
["  God  "]  to  be  taken  in  tiie  same  sense  in  which  Philo,  in  order  to 
distinguish  the  Logos  from  the  absolute  God  (6  i9edf),  calls  him  simply 
iSfof,  without  the  article,  and  even  6  devrepog  i?£df,  "  the  second  God," 
but  with  the  express  addition  that  this  last  expression  is  used  only 
figuratively.  If,  as  we  have  seen,  John  understood  by  the  Logos  a 
real  divine  person,  and  yet,  as  a  Christian  apostle,  certtinly  adhered  to 
the  monotheistic  idea  of  God  in  a  higher  and  far  piu-er  degree  (xvii.  3 ; 
1  John  V.  20)  than  Philo,  —  then  must  he,  not  less  than  Philo,  have  un- 
derstood "  the  word  was  God  "  in  a  figurative  sense.  Thus  the  meaning 
of  debg  would  be  nearly  the  same  as  that  of  ■deloc,  "  divine."  But  this 
equivalence  of  -delog  and  ■&d)g  is  not  allowed  by  New-Testament  usage. 
We  must,  then,  tiike  ^idg,  without  the  article,  in  the  indefinite  sense 
of  a  divine  nature  or  a  divine  being,  as  distinguished  from  the  definite 
absolute  God,  6  dedg,  the  avrddeog  of  Origcn.  Thus  the  ^ebg  of  John 
answers  to  "the  image  of  God"  of  Paul,  Col.  i.  15.  —  Al)ridged  from 
F.  LiiCKE's  Dissertation  on  the  Logos,  as  translated  in  the  Christian 
Examiner  for  Mai),  1849. 

John  xx.  28. 

This  has  generally  been  considered  an  exclamation,  and  the  wofds 
8cem  to  admit  it ;  but  to  me  the  sense  appears  to  be,  "  Yes !  he  is 
truly  my  Lord  and  my  God."  The  exclamation  is  a  recognition  of 
Jesus.  I  will  not  go  so  far  as  to  conclude  from  these  words,  that  he 
actually  recognized,  at  the  time,  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  of  which 
we  have  no  tnice  amongst  the  ajjostles,  jjrcvious  to  the  ettiision  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;  at  least,  it  was  not  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Jewish 
theology.  But  he  mther  names  him  in  a  figurative  sense  —  as  one 
risen  from  the  dead  —  his  god,  whom  he  will  always  honor  and  adore ; 
in  the  same  way  as  Virgil,  in  his  first  Eclogue,  only  still  stronger, 
addresses  Augustus :  "  For  he  shall  always  l)e  mj/  god :  the  tender 
Limb  from  our  folds  shall  often  stiin  his  altar."  —  J.  D.  MlCILUOilS: 
TTu  Burial  and  licsicrrcdion  of-  Jesus  Christ,  pp.  272-3. 


curasT  NOT  god  in  tue  nionEST  sense.  429 

It  may  he  justly  doubted  wliether  the  so  lately  incredulous,  because 
prejudiced  and  unenlightened,  disciple  had  then,  or  at  any  time  before 
the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  Pentecost,  any  complete  notion 
of  the  divine  nature  of  Jesus,  as  forming  part  of  the  Godhead ;  yet 
there  is  reason  to  think  that  the  Jews  held  in  a  certain  sense  the 
Divinity  of  the  Messiah,  though  they  had  no  adequate  conception  of 
the  true  nature  of  it.  —  Dr.JS.  T.  Bloomfield  on  John  xx.  28;  in 
Recensio  Sijnoptica. 

Acts  xx.  28. 

The  true  reading  seems  to  be  rov  avpiov,  "  of  the  Lord." ...  In  the 
Nestorian  controversy,  many  affirmed  that  nowhere  in  Sacred  Scripture 
occui-s  the  expression,  "  blood  of  God."  The  reading  ^eov,  "  of  God," 
rests  chiefly  on  the  authority  of  the  Latin  Vulgate.  The  author  of 
the  ancient  Syriac  version  reads  tov  XpcaTov,  "  of  Christ.  The  manu- 
scripts which  have  ■&€ov  koI  Kvpiov,  "  of  Lord  and  God,"  are  recent, 
and  of  very  little  value.  —  J.  G.  Rosenmuller  in  loc. 

Acts  XX.  28,  where  ^eov  ["  God "]  is  the  common  reading,  and 
Kvpiov  ["  Lord  "]  is  the  one  more  recently  preferred  by  most  critics, 
...  I  would  gladly  view  as  a  textus  emendandus,  and  cheerfully  sub- 
stitute Kvpiov  for  ^eov,  inasmuch  as  al/xa  ^eov  ["  blood  of  God  "],  which 
the  common  reading  would  imply,  is  an  expression  utterly  foreign 
to  the  Bible.  A  God  whose  blood  was  shed  must  surely  be  a  -dedc 
devrepog  ["  secondary  God  "],  as  the  Arians  would  have  it,  and  not  the 
impassible  and  eternal  God,  which  I  believe  the  Logos  to  be.  —  MosES 
Stuart,  in  the  Biblical  Repository  for  April,  1838;  voL  xi.  p.  315. 

It  would  appear,  then,  that,  notwithstanding  the  many  thousand  times 
that  this  passage  has  been  appealed  to  as  containing  decisive  proof  for  the 
essential  and  eternal  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  reading  on  which  the  argument 
rests  is  more  favorable  to  the  old  Arian  than  to  the  Trinitarian  view  of  our 
Lord's  nature. 

RoM.  ix.  5. 

It  need  not  surprise  us,  that  Christ  in  the  flesh  is  called  "  God  over 
all  blessed  for  ever,"  since  "  God  hath  highly  exalted  him "  in  the 
human  nature,  "  and  given  him  a  name  above  every  name,"  &c.,  Phil, 
ii.  9;  and  "hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet,"  1  Cor.  xv.  27;  "and 
\vill  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  that  man  whom  he  hath 
ordained,"  Acts  x%ii.  31.  —  Dr.  James  Macknight  on  Rom.  ix.  5. 

The  only  way  in  which  any  avoiding  of  its  force  [the  force  of  this 
text]  is  practicable,  seems  to  be,  to  assert  that  6  C)v  km  mivruv  \9fd{ 


430  CHRIST   NOT  GOD   IN   THE  UIGUKST   SENSE. 

is  meant  to  designate  merely  the  supremacy  of  Christ  as  Mediator, 
in  wliich  capacity  he  is  quasi  Dtus,  and  in  the  like  capacity  is  styled 
C^ribs  ["  God  "]  in  Ps.  xlv.  In  pursuing  this  course,  more  probability 
than  is  now  exhibited  in  the  various  evasions  that  I  have  above  noticed, 
and  also  more  ingenuousness,  might  be  shown.  But  still,  &c.  — 
Mosi:s  Stuart,  in  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romxins. 

With  the  aid  of  other  learned  Trinitarians,  we  mean  to  show,  in  the 
proper  place,  that  the  words  rendered,  in  the  common  version,  "  Christ 
came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever,"  may  be  translated,  in  accord- 
ance with  Paul's  usual  sentiments,  as  a  doxolojjy  to  the  Father:  "  Christ 
came.    God,  who  is  over  all,  be  blessed  for  ever." 

1  Tim.  iii.  16. 

In  reference  to  the  Arian  hypothesis,  this  place  can  scarcely  be 
urged  aa  decisive  against  it,  unless  in  connection  with  others.  Arians 
do  not  deny  that  tlie  title  "  God  "  is  given  to  Jesus  Christ  in  the  New 
Testament,  though  they  are  far  from  thinking  him  to  be  ti-ue  or 
supreme  God.  His  manifestation  in  the  flesh  has,  accordingly,  been 
sometimes  explained  by  them  of  the  Word,  or  Logos,  uniting  himself 
to  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  and  supplying  in  him  the  place  of  a  human 
souL  If  ^ebg  be  interpreted  of  a  divine  nature  simply,  as  some  take 
it,  it  is  easy,  say  thev,  to  perceive  how  a  divine  nature  was  exhibited 
by  Jesus  in  the  precepts  he  dehvered,  the  actions  he  jjerformed,  the 
pure  doctrines  he  inculcated,  and  the  patience  in  suffering  he  evinced. 
Such  is  the  way  in  which  some  Arians  reason ;  and  to  refute  them 
from  the  present  reading,  ^ehg,  is  dilhcult.  Other  considemtions  must 
be  urged  against  them ;  for  I  cannot  see  that  -deh^  is  of  overwhelming 
weight,  in  opposition  to  their  particular  opinions.  —  Dr.  S.^mukl 
Davidson:  Lectures  on  Biblical  Crilicutm,  pp.  160-1. 

The  passage  here  cited  from  Dr.  Davidson  is  omitted  in  the  last  edition 
of  his  work;  or,  to  speak  with  greater  accuracy,  it  does  not  appear  in  that 
entitled  "  A  Treatise  on  Biblical  Criticism;"  so  miicli  altered  that  he  calls  it 
in  his  Trefacc  "  a  new  book,"  containing  his  "  latest  and  most  mature  jndg- 
inonts."  Hut  in  the  latter  work  lie  says  (vol.  ii.  p.  403),  what  is  equally  to 
our  purpose,  that  the  text  "  is  by  no  means  decisive  either  for  or  against  the 
proper  Divinity  of  Christ;"  «>iJ  that  "too  much  stress  has  been  laid  upon 
it  in  doctrinal  controversies  respecting  the  person  of  the  Redeemer;  "  closing 
with  an  acknowledgment,  that  he  "  fully  agrees "  with  Professor  Stuakt 
in  the  remarks  made  by  him  in  the  Biblical  Repository  for  Jatmary,  1832 
(vol.  ii.  p.  79);  and  wliich,  because  of  tlioir  appropriateness,  we  intend  to 
quote  in  a  future  volume. 


CHRIST  NOT  aOD   IN  TUE  HIGHEST   SENSE.  431 

Titus  ii.  13. 

Why  is  he  [Jesus  Christ]  here  called  "  the  great  God  "  ?  The 
reason  may  be,  because  in  Jesus  Christ  the  Father  displays  his  good- 
ness, the  greatness  of  his  wisdom,  truth,  grace,  John  i. ;  the  greatness 
and  "  fulness  of  his  Godhead  bodily,"  Col.  ii.  9.  —  Dr.  Robert  Gell  : 
Remains,  vol.  ii.  p.  418. 

Gruntinjr  for  a  moment,  what  we  think  is  improbable,  that  the  title 
"  great  God,"  as  well  as  "  Saviour,"  were  liere  attributed  to  Christ,  would 
not  Dr.  Gell's  interpretation  be  demanded  by  a  regard  to  the  practice  of 
St.  Paul,  whose  usual  manner  is  to  speak  of  the  Father  as  the  original  Source 
of  all  pre-eminence  and  greatness,  and  the  Son  as  the  agent,  representative, 
or  image  of  the  Most  High?  —  lu  passing,  we  may  notice  that  Gell  does 
not  interpret  the  phrase,  "  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,"  of  what  is  called 
the  hypostatical  union  or  the  incarnation  of  God  the  Son,  but  of  the  Father's 
displaying  his  greatness  and  fulness  in  Christ. 

"The  glorious  appearing  of  the  great  God,  and  of  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ." . .  .  The  6  fiqulo^  -Qebg,  Kai  auri/p  r/fiuv,  of  St.  Paul  in 
this  place,  denote  the  two  persons  whom  our  Lord  expressed  in  the 
words,  6  narrip  /xel^wv  /iov  ["  The  Father  greater  than  I "].  Some 
eminently  pious  and  learned  scholars  of  the  last  and  present  century 
have  so  tar  overstretched  the  argument  founded  on  the  presence  or 
absence  of  the  article,  as  to  have  run  it  into  a  fallacious  sophistry , 
and,  in  the  intensity  of  their  zeal  to  maintain  the  "  honor  of  the  Son," 
were  not  sensible  that  they  were  rather  engaged  in  "  dishonoring 
the  Father."  .  .  .  Though  our  blessed  Lord  is  indeed  Deity,  yet  he 
is  such  by  generation  and  communication  of  the  paternal  nature  of  his 
heavenly  Father ;  as  he  himself  was  always  earnest  to  impress  on  the 
minds  of  his  disciples.  These  observations  are  to  be  ajiplied  also  to 
2  Pet.  i.  1.  —  Granville  Penn  :  Supplemental  Annotations  to  the 
Book  of  the  JVew  Covenant,  p.  145. 

Heb.  iii.  4. 

Most  commentators,  from  Whitby  to  Stuart,  suppose  the  words 
to  be  an  argument  to  show  the  superiority  of  Christ  over  Moses,  by 
shoAv-ing  that  Jesus  is  God ;  but  that  requires  us  to  supply  at  the  end, 
"  And  Christ  is  God."  The  argument,  too,  would  be  brought  forward 
with  an  abruptness  very  unlike  any  other  in  the  Epistle.  The  sense 
of  the  whole  passage  is,  I  think,  well  represented  by  Aix'hbishop 
Newcome  in  the  following  j)araphrase :  "  He  who  constituted,  or  set 
in  order,  any  society,  hath  greater  honor  than  that  society,  or  any  part 


432  CHRIST   NOT   GOD   IN   THE   IIIUHEST   SENSE. 

of  it.  But  Christ  conducted  the  Mosaic  dispensation  as  the  visible 
Representative  of  God,  John  i.  18.  I  say,  'lie  who  fi-anicd  the 
household.'  For  every  religious  or  civil  body  has  some  head,  — 
the  Israelites,  for  instance,  when  they  were  miraculously  conducted 
out  of  Ei!;\'])t,  and  received  the  law  at  Mount  Sinai ;  but  the  supreme 
and  ultimate  Head  of  all  things  is  God."  This  view  of  the  sense  is 
confirmed  by  the  learned  researches  of  Dindork  and  KuixoL,  and 
leaves  no  real  difficulty,  except  to  account  for  the  apostle's  having 
subjoined  this.  —  Dr.  S.  T.  Bloomfield  on  Heb.  iii.  4 ;  in  Greek 
Testament,  fifth  American,  from  the  second  London,  edition. 

After  a  few  more  remarks,  Dr.  Bloomfield  adds,  that  thus  fiir  he  had 
written  in  the  first  edition  of  his  work;  but  that,  although  there  was  only  a 
change  of  ditTiculties,  he  was  lialf  inclined  to  adopt  the  opinion  of  Professor 
Stuakt,  who  interprets  the  word  "  God  "  liere  as  applied  to  Christ. 

1  John  v.  20. 
It  might  be  a  question,  whether  the  word  "  tliis  "  refers  here  to 
God,  or  to  the  incarnate  Son,  in  whom  he  has  revealed  himself.  In 
either  case,  the  jiractical  import  of  the  words  is  the  same.  The  con- 
nection, however,  leads  us  to  regard  the  reference  to  God  as  the 
prominent  one,  since  God  is  afterwards  contrasted  with  idols.  The 
apostle  has  just  been  contemplating  Christ  as  the  Mediator  of  this 
fellowship  with  God.  Hence  we  must  suppose  that  in  conclusion  he 
sets  forth  this  one  jjrominent  thought :  This  God,  with  whom  believers 
thus  stand  in  fellowship  through  Christ,  is  the  only  true  God,  and 
hence  is  the  primal  Source  of  eternal  life :  through  him  alone,  there- 
fore, we  can  become  partikers  of  etcnial  life,  in  which  is  cont;iined  the 
sum  of  all  good,  as  the  highest  good  for  the  God-related  spirit  In 
him,  therefore,  we  have  all  which  we  need  for  time  and  eternity.  It 
is  true,  indeed,  as  we  have  seen,  that  Cln-ist,  as  the  only-begotten  Son 
of  God,  is  called  by  John  the  eternal  Life  which  was  with  the  Father, 
and  wliich  has  aj)])eared  on  earth  in  order  to  impart  itself  to  man. 
With  tJK'se  words  he  commenced  this  Epistle.  But  it  is  also  appro- 
priate, that,  in  closing,  he  should  ])oint  to  the  primal  Source,  to  Him 
who  is  himself  that  eternal  Life  which  has  poured  itself  forth  into  the 
only-begotten  Son,  and  through  him  into  lunnanity.  —  AUGUSTUS 
Neander:  The  First  Epistle  of  John  pradicaUy  explained,  pp.  317. 

The  reason  assigned  by  Nkanukk  for  attributing  to  the  Fatlicr  the 
phrase  "  eternal  life"  may  be  regarded  as  a  sufficient  answer  to  Waisdlaw, 
Stuakt,  and  others,  who  lay  the  chief  stress  on  it  for  applying  to  Jesus 
Christ  the  whole  clause.  "  This  is  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life." 


CnniST  NOT   GOD   IN   THE  HIGHEST   SENSE.  433 

JUDE  4. 

The  translation  in  our  English  Bible  ...  I  have  adopted,  not  onl) 
because,  according  to  it,  two  persons  are  spoken  of  as  denied,  - 
namely,  "  the  only  Lord  God,"  and  "  orn-  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  —  but 
because  it  repi-esents  Jude's  sentiment  as  precisely  the  same  with 
John's,  1  Epist,  ii.  22,  "  He  is  the  antichrist  who  denieth  the  Father 
and  the  Son."  .  .  .  Because  the  article  is  prefixed  only  to  novov  i)Ebv 
["  the  onl  J  God  "],  and  not  repeated  before  Kvpwv  rjiiuv  'h/aovv  Xpiarov 
["  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ "],  Beza  is  of  opinion  that  these  epithets, 
asanoTTiv,  i9e6v,  and  id'piov  ["  Sovereign,"  "  Gt)d,"  and  "  Lord  "J,  belong 
all  to  Jesus  Christ.  But  the  want  of  the  article  is  too  slight  a  founda- 
tion to  build  so  import^mt  a  doctrine  on.  For,  in  the  following 
passages,  John  xvii.  3 ;  Eph.  v.  5  ;  1  Tim.  v.  21,  \a.  13 ;  2  Pet.  i.  1,  2, 
"God"  and  "Jesus  Christ"  are  mentioned  jointly,  with  the  article 
prefixed  to  one  of  them  only ;  yet  every  reader  must  be  sensible  that 
they  are  not  one,  but  two  distinct  persons.  Besides,  dtanoTrjc  is  a  title 
not  commonly  given  to  Jesus  Christ,  who-se  proper  title  is  6  Kvpiog.  — 
Dr.  James  Macknight  :  Translation  of  the  Epistles. 

Otov,  "  God,"  is  omitted  by  A  [the  Alexandrian  MS.],  B  [the  Vati- 
can], C  [the  Ephrem],  sixteen  others,  with  Erpen's  Arabic,  the  Coj)tic, 
^thiopic,  Armenian,  and  Vulgate,  and  by  many  of  the  fathers.  —  Dr. 
Adam  Clakke,  in  his  Commentary. 

Rev.  i.  8. 
The  alteration  made  in  this  text  by  Griesbach,  viz.,  the  omission 
of  the  clause,  upxfi  Kal  riXog  ["  the  beginning  and  the  ending  "],  and 
the  insertion  of  the  word  -Qebc  ["  God  "]  after  Kvptx>g  ["  Lord  "],  a])])ears 
to  rest  upon  ample  authority.  .  .  .  Since  the  description,  "  which  is, 
and  which  was,  and  which  is  to  come,"  is  the  same  as  that  by  which, 
almost  immediately  before,  the  Father  is  characterized,  and  distin- 
guished from  the  Spirit  and  the  Son,  it  must,  I  think,  be  allowed, 
especially  if  Griesbach's  text  be  taken  for  our  guide,  that  these 
are  the  words  of  God,  even  the  Father.  —  Joseph  John  Gurney  : 
Biblical  JVotcs,  pp.  85-6. 

All  the  texts  here  slightly  treated  of  will  be  discussed  more  at  length  in 
our  future  volumes,  according  to  the  order  in  which  they  occur  in  the  Bible; 
nnd  numerous  otlier  orthodox  writer,  ot  the  highest  standing,  appealed  to 
in  support  of  the  expositions  which  have  been  adopted  by  Unitarians. 

See  "  Scripture  Proofs  and  Scriptural  Illustrations  of  Unitarianism," 
part  i.  chap.  1,  sect.  9,  on  the  use  of  the  word  "  God  "  as  applied  to  Christ. 

37 


434  CURIST  TRAINED   AND   Q'lALLFIED  BY   GOD 


PECT.   V.  —  CHRIST    TRAINED    BY    DIYIVE    P»')VTDJi\OP    TO    ACT    AB 
THE   MESSIAH, 

Christ  ia  bom,  the  great  Anointed; 

Heaven  and  earth  liis  piaises  sing: 
Oh,  receive  whom  Ood  appointed 

ITor  your  Prophet,  Prieat,  and  King! 

Cawoo>> 

Dinne  Providence  had  formed  Jesus  himself  to  be  the  sjurptne 
universal  Teacher  of  mankind  in  such  manner  as  was  agi'eeable  to  his 
Individual  nature,  liis  education,  and  the  modes  of  thinking  peculiar 
to  his  country  and  his  time.  It  prej)ared  him  for  his  important  work 
by  means  of  the  religious  knowledge  which  was  already  contained  in 
the  Old  Testament,  and  excited  in  his  lofty  mind  the  noble  resolution 
to  devote  himself  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  human  race ;  so  that 
Jesus  had  a  lively  assurance  that  he  was  appointed  by  the  Deity  to  lay 
down  his  life  for  manliind,  and  that  he  had  received  power  from  God 
to  raise  again  his  dead  body  from  the  grave,  in  order  thus  to  found  a 
new  religion  for  the  human  race,  and  to  deliver  from  the  punishment 
of  sin  those  who  were  not  rendered  unworthy  of  salvation  by  their 
own  voluntary  guilt.  •  .  •  God  has  at  all  times,  in  the  revelations  which 
he  has  vouchsafed,  made  this  condescension  to  mankind  [an  accommo- 
dation to  human  wetikncss],  in  order  to  communicate  to  them  all 
necessary  knowledge  concerning  himself;  and  has  therefore  provided, 
as  tlie  Teacher  of  the  human  race,  a  man,  in  whom  was  exhiljited,  as 
it  were,  a  ^^sible  image  of  his  own  highest  perfections,  John  xiv.  9. 
Heb.  i,  3.  —  G.  F.  Seiler  :  Biblical  Hermeneutics,  §§  264,  266. 

His  whole  history  proves,  that,  even  as  a  man,  he  [Christ]  was  not 
of  the  common  and  ordinary  class,  but  one  of  those  great  and  extra- 
ordinary persons  of  whom  the  world  has  seen  but  few ;  but  lie  was 
like  oilier  men  in  this  respect,  that  his  talents  and  intellectual  faculties 
did  not  unfold  themselves  at  once,  but  gradually,  and  were  capalilo  of 
progressive  imjirovement.  Hence  Luke  records  (ii.  52),  that  he 
■npoKKOirrE  ao(pt(f  ["  increased  in  wisdom "].  Hence,  tpo,  he  learned 
and  jiractised  obedience  to  the  divine  command,  and  submission  to 
the  divine  will,  Heb.  v.  8;  he  prepared  himself  for  his  office,  &c.  ,  .  . 
Jesus  was  also  learned  in  the  Jewish  law  and  all  Jewish  literature, 
although  he  had  not  studied  at  the  common  Jewish  schools,  nor  with 
the  lawyers:  vide  John  vii.  15;  .  .  cf.  Matt.  xiii.  54.     Probably,  divine 


TO   ACT   AS  THE  MESSIAH.  435 

Providence  made  use,  in  part,  of  natural  means,  in  furnishing  Jesus 
with  this  human  knowledge.  Mary  was  a  relative  of  Elizabeth,  the 
pious  mother  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  a  guest  at  her  house,  Luke  i. 
36,  40.  We  may  imagine,  then,  that  Jesus  received  good  instruction 
in  his  youth  fi'om  some  one  of  this  pious,  sacerdotiil  family.  We  see, 
from  the  first  chapters  of  Luke,  that  Joseph  and  Mary  belonged  to  a 
large  circle  of  pious  male  and  female  friends,  in  whose  profitable 
society  Jesus  passed  his  youth,  and  who  contributed  much  to  his 
education  as  a  man,  especially  as  they  expected  something  great  from 
him  from  his  very  birth,  as  ajjpears  from  Simeon.  —  G.  C.  Knapp  : 
Christian  Theology,  sect,  xciii. 

At  a  tender  age,  he  [Christ]  studied  the  Old  Testament,  and 
obtained  a  better  knowledge  of  its  religious  value  by  the  hght  that 
was  within  him  than  any  human  instruction  could  have  imparted. 
Nor  was  this  beaming  forth  of  an  immediate  consciousness  of  divine 
things  in  the  mind  of  the  child,  in  advance  of  the  development  of  his 
powers  of  discursive  reason,  at  all  alien  to  the  character  and  progress 

of  human  nature,  but  entirely  in  harmony  with  it Although  so 

many  years  of  our  Saviour's  life  are  veiled  in  obscurity.  Me  cannot 
beUeve  that  the  full  consciousness  of  a  divine  call  which  he  displayed 
in  his  later  years  was  of  sudden  growth.  If  a  great  man  accomphshes, 
within  a  very  brief  period,  labors  of  paramount  import;mce  to  the 
world,  and  which  he  himself  regards  as  the  task  of  his  life.  Me  must 
presume  that  the  strength  and  energies  of  his  previous  years  M^ere 
concentrated  into  that  limited  period,  and  that  the  former  only  consti- 
tuted a  time  of  preparation  for  the  latter.  Most  of  all  must  this  be 
true  of  the  labors  of  Christ,  the  greatest  and  most  importimt  that  the 
world  has  knoMTi.  We  have  the  right  to  presume  that  He  vho 
assumed  as  his  task  the  salvation  of  the  human  race  made  his  M'hole 
previous  existence  to  bear  upon  this  mighty  labor.  The  idea  of  the 
Messiah,  as  Kedeemer  and  King,  streamed  forth  in  divine  light,  from 
the  course  of  the  theocracy  and  the  scattered  intimations  of  the  Old 
Testament,  in  full  extent  and  clearness ;  and  in  divine  light  he  recog- 
nized tliis  Messiahship  as  his  om'u,  and  this  consciousness  of  God  M'ithin 
him  harmonized  M-ith  the  extraordinary  phenomena  that  occurred  at 
his  birth.  But  the  negative  side  of  the  Messiahship,  namely,  its 
relation  to  sin,  he  could  not  learn  from  self-contem]jlation. . .  Although 
his  personal  experience  could  not  unfold  this  peculiar  modification  of 
the  Messianic  consciousness,  many  of  its  essential  features  Mere  con- 
tinually suggested  by  his  intercourse  Mith  the  outer  M-orld.  .  .  .  We 


43  G  CUIUST   TRAINED   AND  QUALIFIED  BY   GOD 

may  assumo,  that  when  he  reached  his  thirtieth  year,  fully  assured  of 
his  call  to  the  Messiahsliip,  he  waited  only  for  a  sign  from  God  to 
emerge  from  his  obscuritv,  and  enter  upon  his  work.  This  sign  was 
to  be  given  him  by  means  of  the  last  of  God's  witnesses  under  the 
old  dispens;ition,  whose  c;illing  it  was  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  new 
development  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  —  by  Jdlin  the  Baptist,  the 
last  representative  of  the  proi)hetic  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament.  — 
Augustus  NEiVXDER:  Life  of  Jesus  Christ,  pp.  31,  41-2. 

In  the  New  Testament,  we  learn  that  the  great  Captain  of  our 
salvation  did  not  encounter  the  powers  of  darkness,  or  enter  upon  his 
work,  till  lie  was  anointed  by  the  Spirit  of  God :  "  The  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  God  is  ujjon  me,  bcc;iuse  he  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  tlie  gos- 
pel to  the  jjoor :  he  hath  sent  me  to "    He,  though  a  personage  of 

such  a  divine  and  extraordinary  character,  yet,  considered  as  an  instru- 
ment in  this  work  (with  reverence  be  it  spoken),  was  not  qualified  for 
it  till  the  Spirit  had  descended  upon  him ;  and,  when  he  went  into 
the  wilderness,  he  was  filled  with  the  Spirit.  —  KoBERT  Hall  :  The 
Siiccess  of  Missions  ;  iii  If  oiks,  vol.  iii.  p.  402. 

The  sacred  writers  do  not  seem  to  hiive  ever  felt  any  dread  in  stating  the 
same  sentiment,  tliut  tlie  Messiah  wiis  an  instrument  or  agent  in  the  hands 
of  his  Ahnighty  Father  to  accomplish  the  salvation  of  num. 

It  is  from  his  [Christ's]  discourses  themselves  that  we  are  chiefly 
instructed  in  his  j)re-cniincnce  as  tlie  great  Prophet  of  God.  .  .  Ilichly 
was  he  endowed,  and  al)unduiitly  qualified  to  be  an  instructive  preacher. 
He  did  not  rush  into  the  ministry  until  his  mind  was  thoroughly  fur- 
nished for  his  work.  For  a  long  time  he  dwelt  at  Xaz;ireth,  diligently 
prei)ariiig  himself  for  this  high  service ;  and  so  well  had  he  studied 
the  Sacred  Scriptures,  that  at  twelve  years  of  age  he  astonished  the 
doctors  of  the  temple,  "  both  hearing  them  and  asking  them  ques- 
tions." It  was  not  till  after  his  severe  trial  in  the  wilderness,  where 
his  faith  and  knowledge  were  jiut  to  tlie  test  of  the  most  artful  and 
severe  of  all  ojiijosers,  nor  until  he  was  about  tliirty  years  of  age,  tliat 
he  liegxn  his  wonderful  career.  —  Dll.  G.UIUINEH  Si'KlNG  :  Gloi-y  of 
Christ,  vol.  i.  pp.  136-7. 

The  writer  of  this  passage  very  needlessly  adds,  that,  "  besides  this, 
Jesus  was  God  as  well  as  man;"  for  surely  he  could  not  be  the  infinite  and 
uiiderived  Source  of  all  knowledge  who  "  diligently  prepared  himself,"  by 
the  study  ol  the  Old  I'estament,  for  entering  on  and  pursuing  that  luiuistry 
of  love  with  which  Uod  intrusted  him. 


TO   ACT   AS  TUE  MESSIAH.  437 

The  years  of  his  life  which  were  most  veiled  in  obscurity  were  full 
of  preparatory  discipline,  wisely  adapted  to  the  sublimest  ends.  The 
lowly  circumstances  of  his  infancy,  the  severe  toils  of  his  youth,  and 
the  varied  experience  of  his  early  manhood,  were  doubtless  designed 
gradually  to  awaken  the  full  consciousness  of  that  divine  call,  and 
fortify  him  with  that  perfect  mastery  over  adverse  powers  which  he 
displayed  on  entering  upon  his  public  life.  From  an  infinite  diversity 
of  sources,  sublunary  and  celestial,  Jesus  imbibed  energies  of  every 
kind,  which,  with  in-esistible  concentrativeness,  were  at  length  era- 
ployed  to  redeem  and  renovate  the  world He  was  diviner 

than  they  [than  the  heralds  of  the  ancient  theocracy],  —  had  more 
character,  and  therefore  was  habitually  moi'e  majestic  and  calm.  He 
was  equally  private  in  his  habits  of  life,  was  even  more  conversant  with 
nature  than  his  predecessors  on  the  heights  of  inspiration  ;  •  but  he  was 
imbued  with  Deity  more  than  any  man,  relied  incessantly  on  himself 
for  augmented  force,  and  exerted  the  greatest  public  energy,  for  the 
very  reason  probably  that  he  threw  abroad  his  heavenly  grandeur  from 
the  shadows  of  the  most  humble  sphere.  ...  At  the  outset,  oppressed 
as  he  was  by  toil  and  exclusiveness,  he  strove  to  stand  the  first  among 
our  race,  an  independent  thinker,  struggling  for  the  suffering  of  every 
class,  >vith  head,  hands,  and  heart  disinthralled.  .  .  .  All  that  was 
needed  to  make  him  a  tender  Friend,  a  perfect  Teacher,  and  a  mighty 
Redeemer,  he  acquired  by  experience  on  earth,  and  transmitted  for  its 
hope.  —  E.  L.  Magoon  :  Republican  Christianitij,  or  True  Liberty, 
pp.  48,  63-4. 

If  Jesus  '■'■  gTodually  awakened  to  the  consciousness  of  his  divine  call;" 
if  the  energies  which  he  exerted  for  the  redemption  of  the  world  were 
^^ imbibed  from  an  infinite  diversity  of  sources,"  both  of  heaven  and  earth; 
if  he  was  superior  to  the  old  Jewish  prophets,  or  more  divine  than  they, 
because  he  was  "  more  conversant  with  nature  than  his  predecessors  on  the 
heights  of  inspiration ;  if  he  was  "  imbued  with  Deity  more  than  any  man," 
an'l  thus  endowed,  "  relied  incessantly  on  himself  for  augmented  force ;  "  if, 
at  the  commencement  of  his  ministry,  "  he  iivove  to  stand  the  first  among 
our  race,  an  independent  thinker;"  and  if  "all  that  was  needed  to  make 
him  a  tender  Friend,  a  perfect  Teacher,  and  a  mighty  Redeemer,  he  acquired 
hy  expeiience  on  earth,"  —  surely,  unless  corrupted  by  an  absurd  hypothesis, 
common  sense  and  universal  reason  will  both  exclaim,  that  this  struggling, 
striving  suffering  personage,  who  obtained  by  inspiration  and  experience 
the  requisites  for  acting  as  the  Teacher  and  Saviour  of  mankind,  could  not 
be,  at  the  same  time,  what  Mr.  Magoon  in  other  places  calls  him,  "  Jeho- 
vah "  or  "  God  "  himself,  the  inherent  Possessor  and  absolute  Fountain  of 
all  power  and  wisdom. 


438  IN   HIS  OFFICES   AND   QUALIFICATIONS, 


SECT.  VI.  —  IN   HIS  OFFICES  AXD  REQUISITE  QUALIFICATIONS,  CURT8X 
SUBORDINATE  TO  GOD. 

Behold  my  Servant!  sec  him  rise 

Exalted  in  my  might! 
Him  have  I  chosen,  and  in  bim 

I  place  supreme  delight. 

Chbistun  Psalmist. 

4  1.   Christ  as  a  Divine  Teacher,  and  a  Worker  of  Miracles. 

When  Christ  appeals  to  his  miracles  in  evidence  of  his  Dignity, 
he  does  not  suppose,  that  these,  simply  and  in  themselves,  prove  the 
Divinity  of  tlie  person  by  whom  they  are  performed ;  for,  though  real 
miracles  cannot  be  done  without  divine  power,  God  has  often  conferred 
this  gift  on  mere  men,  Miracles,  therefore,  by  themselves,  do  not 
prove  that  those  who  perform  them  are  in  nature  God,  but  only  that 
their  mission  and  doctrine  are  true  and  divine.  Hence  Christ  ex- 
pressly says,  "  Though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works  "  [John 
X.  38];  The  apostles  themselves  performed  many  and  great  works, 
and  in  a  more  extraordinary  manner  than  Christ  did.  "What  then  ? 
I)o  these  miracles  prove  that  the  apostles  were  Gods  by  nature  ?  By 
no  means.  Though  Christ  was  from  eternity  the  true  God,  yet  I 
assert  that  his  miracles  do  not  in  themselves  evmce  his  Divinity,  but 
the  truth  of  his  doctrine.  —  Abridged  from  Brentius  j  aptid  Sandiuiriy 
p]).  135-7. 

He  to  whom  God,  by  doing  mimcles,  gave  testimony  from  heaven, 
must  needs  be  sent  from  God ;  and  he  who  had  received  power  to 
restore  nati  re,  and  to  create  new  organs,  and  to  extract  from  incapaci- 
ties, and  fi  jm  privations  to  reduce  habits,  was  Lord  of  nature,  and 
therefore  of  all  the  world.  —  Jeremy  Taylor:  Jjife  of  Jesus  Christ, 
part  ii.  Disc.  14 ;  in  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  105. 

The  bishop,  however,  inconsistently  speaks  of  the  great  Messenger,  who 
had  "received"  miraculous  power,  as  evidencing  by  it  tlie  Divinity  of  liis 
person. 

Jesus  Christ,  whilst  he  was  on  earth,  delivered  all  his  doctrines  and 
precei)ts  in  his  Father's  name,  or  as  one  sent  from  him,  and  authorized 
to  speak  what  he  delivered  in  his  name.  He  ])reached  his  doctrines, 
Bnd  delivered  his  sayings,  to  the  world,  by  virtue  of  that  Spirit  with 
which  he  was  anointed.     The  miracles  he  did  on  earth,  in  conlirmation 


CHRIST  SUBORDINATE  TO   GOD.  439 

of  his  mission  and  his  doctinne,  were  also  done  by  the  assistance  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Moreover,  our  Lord  declares  he  did  his  miracles  by 
"  the  Father  abiding  in  him,"  Being  then  in  his  state  of  humiliation, 
and  emptied  of  the  form  of  God,  he  acted,  in  things  relating  imme  ■ 
diately  to  his  prophetic  office,  not  as  God,  but  only  as  a  jirophet  sent 
from  God ;  not  by  the  power  of  his  divine  nature,  but  of  that  Spirit 
by  which  he  was  anointed  and  sanctified  to  that  office.  Though,  being 
also  God  of  the  same  essence  derived  from  the  Father,  he  might  do 
many  other  things  by  virtue  of  his  Dinnity,  &c.  —  Abridged  from 
Dr.  Daniel  Whitby  :  Preface  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  John ;  in  Corrv 
nientary  on  the  N'ew  Testai)vent. 

We  quote,  without  any  hesitation,  from  this  work  of  Dr.  Whitby;  for, 
though  in  his  latter  years  he  retracted  his  Athauasiaii  principles,  and  became 
a  believer  in  the  simple  unity  of  God,  his  "  Commentary  on  the  New  Testa- 
ment" is  still  regarded  by  Trinitarians  as  of  high  orthodox  authority,  and  is 
often  appealed  to  without  the  slightest  mention  being  made  of  his  having 
corrected,  in  his  "  Last  Thoughts,"  the  Trinitarian  sentiments  which  he  had 
therein  propounded. 

He  [Jesus]  taught  his  great  lessons  of  morality  and  religion,  not  as 
derived  from  the  information  of  others,  or  from  the  dictates  of  his  own 
reason,  but  as  immediately  conveyed  to  him  from  the  Somxe  of  light 
and  truth,  from  God  himself.  "  Whatsoever  I  speak,  even  as  the 
Father  said  to  me,  so  I  speak,"  John  xii.  50.  —  Bishop  Hurd  : 
Sermons  preached  at  Lincoln's  Inn,  vol.  iii.  (Sermon  4),  pj).  65-6. 

This  remark  is  in  much  greater  accordance  with  the  statements  in  the 
Gospels  than  the  assertion  made  afterwards  by  the  bishop,  that  .Jesus 
"  spake,  by  virtue  of  his  own  essential  right,  from  himself,  and  in  his  own 
name." 

Christ,  as  the  Messiah,  received  his  commission  from  God,  —  every 
thing  that  related  to  the  formation  and  establishment  of  the  Christian 
institution.  All  his  private  conversixtions  with  his  disciples  or  others, 
ht»,  as  man,  commanded  and  spoke  through  the  constant  inspiration 
ol  the  Holy  Spiiit.  —  Abridged  from  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  on  John 
xu.  49 

No  cne  can  carefully  read  the  New  Testament  without  feeling  persuaded, 
that,  as  the  Jlessiah,  or  God's  anointed  one,  our  Lord  is  the  sum  and  sub- 
stance of  all  its  teachings;  and  that,  though  Jewish  and  restricted  in  its  first 
acceptation,  this  name  comprehends  whatever  is  most  divine  in  Jesus,  and 
interesting  to  his  disciples.  If,  then,  Jesus,  as  the  Christ  or  Me.xs  all,  was 
indebted  to  God.  as  Dr.  Clai;kk  admits,  for  his  commission  to  the  human 


440  IN   ni3  OFFICES  AND   QDALrPICATIONS, 

race,  and  for  "  every  thinj;  that  related  to  the  formation  and  establishment" 
of  his  reli<;ion,  then  surely  it  would  follow  heyoiid  doubt  that  he  was  not 
God  himself,  but  subordinate  and  inferior  to  him. 

Some  commentators,  after  Jerome  and  TiiEorHYLACT,  refer  this 
authority,  with  which  Christ  spake,  to  his  delivering  the  Liw  in  his 
own  name,  as  the  original  fmmer,  and  not  the  mere  interpreter,  of  it. 
But  tliis  seems  to  be  somewhat  at  variance  with  the  declarations  made 
by  him  upon  several  ocaxsions,  that  his  doctrine  was  not  his  own,  but 
His  that  sent  him,  John  vii.  16;  xvii.  18,  and  elsewhere.-  llente 
LlGHTFOOT  and  Whitby  suppose  that  he  spoke  as  a  prophet,  liaving 
authority  from  God  to  dehver  his  message ;  not  as  the  scribes,  who 
merely  interpreted  the  Scriptures  according  to  the  traditions  of  their 
forefathers.  But  the  word  i^ovala  seems  rather  to  denote  the  force 
and  power  with  which  he  spake ;  his  persuasive  eloquence,  irresistilile 
arguments,  and  perspicuous  sUxtements,  so  different  from  the  trifling 
and  frivolous  disputations  of  the  doctors  and  scribes.  —  William 
Trollope  on  Matt.  vii.  29. 

He  [Christ]  himself  frequently  says,  especially  in  the  Gospel  of 
John,  that  he  performed  the  miracles  which  he  wrought  as  man  through 
a  miraculous  divine  power,  and  as  the  Messenger  of  the  Father.  The 
case  was  the  same  as  to  his  instruction.  Neither  Jesus  himself  nor 
the  apostles  ever  alluded  to  his  proper  Divinity  in  such  a  way  as  to 
imply  that  it  qualified  him,  as  a  man'upon  earth,  to  instnict,  and  work 
miracles.  He  had  resigned  his  divine  prerog;itives,  and  his  qualifica- 
tions are  always  considered  as  derived  from  the  Father.  But  this  free 
renunciation  of  the  privileges  which  belor.ged  to  him  as  God  did  not 

exclude  the  use  of  tliem  when  occasion  should  require The  Xcw 

Testament  everywhere  toadies,  that  Christ,  considered  as  a  man,  was 
qualified  by  God,  for  his  otHce  as  Teacher,  by  extraordinary  intellectual 
endo\vments ;  like  the  prophets  of  old,  and  his  own  apostles  in  after^ 
times,  only  in  a  far  higher  degree  than  they.  John  iii.  34 :  God  g:ive 
to  him  ovK  iK  fiirpov  Td  Trvevjia  ["  the  Sj)irit  not  by  measure  "].  The 
prophets  had  these  endowments,  but  in  a  less  degree :  he,  as  the  high- 
est Messenger  of  God,  had  them  "  without  measure."  Acts  x.  JJS : 
Ixp^rsev  avTov  6  ■9ehg  irvd'fian  uyii^  ««'  i'mvuuei  ["  God  anointed  him 
with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  ^vith  power  "].  Jesus  received  these  higher 
gifts  of  the  Spirit,  when  John  bajjtized  him  ;  for  he  himself  submitted 
of  his  own  accord  to  this  baptism,  by  which  the  Jews  were  to  be 
initiated  into  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah.  .  .  .  Whatever,  therefore, 
the  man  Jesus  either  did  or  taught  after  his  baptism,  he  did  and 


CHRIST  SUBORDINATE  TO  GOD.  441 

taught  as  the  Messenger  of  God;  as  an  mspired  man,  under  direct 

divine  command  and  special  divine  assistance Prophet :  Ihia 

name  was  given  to  Christ,  not  merely  because  he  was  a  teacher,  but 
also  because  he  was  a  messenger  or  ambassador  of  God,  according  to 
the  original  signification  of  the  word.  He  performed  all  his  works, 
suffering  and  djing,  as  well  as  teaching,  as  prophet,  {.  e.,  as  the  Mes- 
senger of  God.  —  G.  C.  Knapp  :  Christ.  Theology,  sect,  xcii.  HI.  (2)  j 
sect.  xciv.  I,  (2) ;  and  sect  cvii.  11.  (4). 


With  the  abatement  of  a  few  expressions  naturally  flowing  from  orthodoA. 
pens,  the  sentiments  which  we  have  just  copied  form  an  appropriate  reply- 
to  the  assertion  not  unfrequently  made  by  Trinitarian  controversialists,  that 
Jesus  delivered  his  instructions  in  his  own  name,  without  appealing  to  any 
authority  but  his  own,  and  performed  his  miracles  by  his  own  underived 
and  inherent  power.  We  will  not  deny  that  our  Lord  taught  with  an  au- 
thority far  beyond  that  of  any  of  the  Jewish  prophets,  Greek  philosophers, 
or  oriental  sages;  but,  with  the  Gospels  in  our  hands,  we  do  emphatically 
affirm,  that  the  humble  and  holy  being  whose  meat  and  drink  it  was  to  do 
the  will  of  the  Father,  who  passed  whole  nights  in  prayer  to  God,  who  spoke 
divine  words  because  he  had  received  without  measure  the  spirit  of  wisdom 
and  understanding,  and  did  divine  deeds  because  his  God  and  Father  was 
with  him  and  in  him,  never  on  any  occasion  meant  to  claim  equality  with 
the  Source  of  all  intelligence  and  might,  —  never  once  implied  that  he  was 
himself  the  Possessor  of  absolute  and  original  perfection.  But  he  was  one 
with  Him  who  was  greater  than  himself;  for,  as  an  obedient  Son,  he  wholly 
conformed  to  the  rectitude  of  his  Father's  will.  He  could  address  the 
multitude,  "  I  say  unto  you;"  the  leper,  "  I  will,  be  thou  clean;"  and 
the  paralytic,  "Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee:"  for,  as  the  Christ  of  God, 
as  the  approved  and  beloved  of  the  Father,  as  the  great  Ambassador  of 
Heaven,  the  Representative  and  Image  of  the  Divine  Majesty,  he  had  the 
privilege  of  uttering  his  message  to  man  in  those  tones  of  regal  power  and 
clemency  which  befitted  his  pure  character  and  his  sublime  offices.  He 
could  say  to  the  storm  on  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  "  Peace,  be  still; "  for  on  him 
the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth  had  conferred  even  a  higher  power  than  that 
of  controlling  the  laws  of  nature,  —  the  power  of  reigning  over  the  minds 
and  hearts  of  men,  and  of  lulling  to  rest  the  tumults  of  human  passion.  He 
could  declare  to  the  anxious  Martha,  "  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life;" 
for  the  infinite  Father  had  made  his  Son  the  source  of  moral  and  spiritual 
life,  —  the  announcer  and  the  exemplifier  of  the  soul's  immortality.  And 
he  could  tell  the  lifeless  Lazarus  to  "come  forth"  from  the  tontb;  for  he 
had  the  full  assurance  that  the  Almighty  Being  whom  he  had  just  addressed 
in  prayer  heard  approvingly  his  benevolent  request,  as  He  always  had  heard 
tlie  petitions  of  his  Son  and  Messenger. 

See  "  Scripture  Proofs  and  Scriptural   Illustrations  of  Unitarianism,' 
part  i.  chap.  2,  sect.  1,  (8);  and  part  ii.  chap.  2,  sect.  7,  (4)  and  (5). 


442  IN  ms  OFFICES  and  qualifications, 

^  2.   Christ  as  Lord  while  on  Earth. 

One  who  reads  the  Bible  with  reflection  ...  is  astonished  to  find, 
that,  on  the  very  first  appearance  of  Jesus  Christ  as  a  teacher,  though 
attended  with  no  exterior  marks  of  splendor  and  majesty ;  though  not 
acknowledged  by  the  great  and  learned  of  the  age ;  though  meanly 
habited,  in  a  garb  not  superior  to  that  of  an  ordinary  artificer,  in  which 
capacity  we  have  ground  to  believe  he  assisted  (Mark  vi.  3)  his  sup- 
posed fatlier  in  his  earlier  days,  —  he  is  addressed  by  almost  everybody 
in  the  peculiar  manner  in  which  the  Almighty  is  addressed  in  piiuer. 
Thus  the  leper,  "  Lord,  if  thou  wilt,  thou  canst  make  me  clean,"  Matt, 
viii.  2.  Thus  the  centurion,  "  Lord,  my  servant  lieth  at  home,"  ver.  6. 
The  Caniumitish  woman  crieth  after  him,  "Have  mercy  on  me,  O 
Lord !  "  chaj).  xv.  22.  He  is  lilvcwise  mentioned  sometimes  under 
the  simple  appellation  of  "  the  Lord  "  (John  xx.  2),  without  any  addi- 
tion ;  a  form  of  expression  which,  in  the  Old  Testament,  our  translators 
.  .  .  had  invariably  appropri:ited  to  God.  What  is  the  meaning  of 
this?  Is  it  that,  from  his  first  showing  himself  in  public,  all  men 
believed  him  to  be  the  Messiah ;  and  not  only  so,  but  to  be  possessed 
of  a  divine  nature,  and  entitled  to  be  accosted  as  God  ?  Far  from  it. 
The  utmost  that  can  with  truth  be  affirmed  of  the  multitude  is,  that 
they  believed  him  to  be  a  prophet.  And  even  those  who,  in  process 
of  time,  came  to  think  him  the  Messiah,  never  formed  a  conception  of 
any  character  as  belonging  to  that  title,  superior  to  that  of  an  earthly 
sovereign,  or  of  any  nature  superior  to  the  human.  Nay,  that  the 
apostles  themselves,  before  his  resurrection,  had  no  higher  notion,  it 
were  easy  to  prove.  What,  tlien,  is  the  reason  of  this  strange  jjecu- 
liarity  ?  Does  the  original  give  any  handle  for  it  ?  None  in  tlie  least. 
For,  though  the  title  that  is  given  to  him  is  the  same  that  is  given  to 
God,  it  is  so  far  from  being  peculiarly  so,  as  is  the  case  with  the  English 
term  so  circumstiinced,  that  it  is  the  common  compellation  of  civility, 
given  not  only  to  every  stranger,  but  to  almost  every  man  of  a  decent 
aj)pearance,  by  those  whose  stiition  does  not  place  them  in  an  evident 
superiority.  It  is  the  title  with  which  Mary  Magdalene  accosted  one 
whom  she  supposed  to  be  a  gardener,  John  xx.  15.  It  is  the  title 
given  by'  some  Greek  proselytes  to  the  apostle  PliiUj),  probaljly  a 
fisherman  of  Galilee,  chap.  xii.  21.  It  is  the  title  with  wiiich  Paul  the 
tent-maker,  and  Silas  his  comj)anion,  were  saluted  by  the  jailer  at 
I'hilijjpi,  Acts  xvi.  30.  Lastly,  it  is  the  title  with  which  Pontius 
Pilate,  the  lloman  procurator,  a  pagan  and  idolater,  is  addi'essed  by 


CUltlST   SUBORDINATE  TO   GOD.  443 

the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees,  Matt,  xxvii.  63,  .  .  .  Fuiiher,  it  is  the 
title  which  those  gave  to  Jesus,  who,  at  the  time  they  gave  it,  knew 
nothing  about  him.  In  this  manner  the  Samaritan  woman  at  Jacob's 
well  addressed  him  (John  iv.  1 1),  when  she  knew  no  more  of  him  than 
that  he  was  a  Jew,  which  would  not  recommend  him  to  her  regard. 
Thus  also  he  was  addressed  by  the  impotent  man  who  lay  near  the 
po'l  of  Bethesda  (chap.  v.  7),  who,  as  we  learn  from  the  sequel  of  the 
story,  did  not  then  know  the  person  who  conversed  with  him,  and  a\  he 
Boon  j)roved  his  benefactor.  .  .  .  Our  interpreters  have,  in  this  particu- 
lar [in  generally  translating  Kvpioc  "  Lord,"  instead  of  "  Sir,"  when 
appHed  to  Jesus  in  the  Gospels],  followed  neither  the  Hebrew  idiom 
nor  the  EngHsh,  but  adapted  a  peculiarity,  in  regard  to  Jesus  Christ, 
■which  represents  most  of  his  contemporaries  as  entertaining  the  same 
opinions  concerning  him  which  are  now  entertained  among  Christians. 
Now,  nothing  can  be  more  manifest  than  that,  in  those  divys,  the  ideas 
of  his  apostles  themselves  were  tar  inferior  to  what  we  entertain.  — 
Geo.  Campbell  :  The  Four  Gospels,  Diss.  vii.  part  i.  sects.  13,  14. 

§  3.   Christ  as  Saviour  or  Redeemer. 

When  we  are  acquainted  by  Christ  for  what  end  he  came  into  the 
world,  and  suffered  and  died,  and  rose  again,  we  may  discover  the  wis- 
dom and  goodness  of  God  in  it,  in  sending  us  such  a  Saviour,  and  in 
qualifying  him  in  so  excellent  a  manner  for  the  work  of  om*  redemp- 
tion ;  but  we  cannot  safely  draw  any  one  conclusion  from  the  person 
of  Christ  which  his  gospel  hath  not  expressly  taught,  because  we  can 
know  no  more  of  the  design  of  it  than  what  is  there  revealed.  —  Dr. 
WiLLLiJVi  Sherlock  :  Knowledge,  of  Christ,  chap.  iii.  sect.  3. 

It  was  because  God  the  Father  infinitely  loved  his  Son,  and  de- 
llglited  to  put  honor  upon  him,  that  he  appointed  liim  to  be  the 
Author  of  that  glorious  work  of  the  salvation  of  men.  —  President 
Edwards  :  Sermon  3 ;  in  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  600. 

As  the  grace  of  Christ  is  the  meritorious,  so  the  love  of  the  Father 
is  tlie  original,  cause  of  all  spiritual  blessings.  The  former  soiu-ce  is 
traced  to  another  still  beyond.  Tlie  Father  is  represented  in  Scripture 
as  originating  the  salvation  of  man,  as  giving  and  sending  his  Son : 
"  God  so  loved  the  world  tliat  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son ;  "  "  Here- 
in is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his 
Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins"  [John  iii.  16;  1  John  iv.  10]. 
Jesus  Christ  always  speaks  of  himself  as  sent  by  the  Father.  —  RoBEKT 
Hall  :  Js'otes  of  Sermons  ;  in  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  568. 


444  IN   HIS   OFFICES   AND   QUALIFICATIONS, 

The  Lord  Jesus  uniformly  represented  himself  as  performing  aU 
his  acts  for  tlie  instruction  and  salvation  of  men,  in  the  most  perfect 
Bul)ser\iency  to  the  will  of  his  Father,  and  dependence  upon  him;  and 
this  fiict  he  stated  in  a  variety  of  expression,  and  on  different  occasions, 
So  as  to  manifest  an  anxiety  to  imjjress  it  deeply  on  his  followers.  — 
Dk.  J.  P.  Smith  :  Sa-iptwe  Testimony,  vol.  ii.  p.  84. 

Tiie  whole  work  of  our  redemption  is  attributed  to  God  as  its 
ultimate  Author,  and  God  is  called  our  Saviour,  beciiuse  he  produced 
the  man  Jesus  by  immediate  creation,  pkced  him  in  an  entirely 
peculiar  union  with  the  Godhead ;  because  God  sent  his  Son ;  because 
Christ  did,  and  still  does,  every  thing  according  to  the  will  of  God ; 
and  l)ecause  he  was  given  us  by  God  to  be  the  Author  of  our 
salvation.  —  Stork  «&  Flatt:  Biblical  Theology,  b.  iv.  §  75. 

He  through  whom  the  Deity  opens,  as  it  were,  afresh  his  inter- 
course with  human  nature,  becomes  necessarily  the  Redeemer,  not 
from  one  special  spiritual  burden,  pressing  on  one  particular  period, 
but  from  the  burden  which  weighed  down  the  whole  human  race,  at 
all  times  and  everywhere.  —  E.  L,  Magoon  :  Republican  Christianity, 
p.  107. 

Many  citations  of  a  similar  character  might  be  here  introduced;  but 
they  will  more  properly  come  under  the  texts  which  they  serve  to  explain. 

§  4.   Christ  as  Mediator. 

The  mediatorial  exaltation  of  Jesus  Christ  is  everywhere  in  the 
New  Testament  attributed  to  the  Father  ;  as,  for  example,  when  it  is 
siiid,  after  a  description  of  his  humiliation,  "  Wherefore  God  hath 
highly  exalted  him,  and  hath  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  everj 
nauic,"  Phil.  ii.  10.  —  Dr.  J.  P.  Smith  :  Scripture  Testimony  to  tJie 
Messiah,  vol.  ii.  p.  84. 

There  is  the  utmost  care  taken  in  Scripture,  .  .  .  that,  in  all  that 
Jesus  did,  he  should  be  represented  as  acting  in  concurrence  with  the 
Father  of  all,  for  the  fulfilment  of  his  decrees,  and  the  manifest;xtion 
of  his  glory.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  Mediator  and  as  conducting 
his  mediatorial  kingdom,  is  manifestly  to  be  distinguished  in  Scripture 
from  the  Sovereign  of  the  universe.  As  Mediator,  he  is  inferior  to 
the  Sovereign  of  the  universe.  He  is  a  servant  (having  taken  on 
him  the  form  or  condition  of  a  servant),  engaged  in  a  peculiar  service, 
sul)ordinate  to  the  general  government  of  the  universe.  In  his  person 
lie  was  inferior  to  God ;  lor  when  the  Word,  who  was  "  with  God," 
and  who  "  was  God,"  "  was  -made  flesh,"  and  was  "  found  ui  fashion  as 


CHRIST  SUBORDINATE  TO  GOD.  445 

a  man,"  1;  e  descended  to  the  condition  of  a  created  being.  That  one 
person,  Jesus,  tlie  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  who  combined  in 
his  person  the  divine  and  human  nature,  was  inferior  to  the  in\'isible, 
eternal  Deity,  as  unallied  to  anj'  creature.  He  was  a  person  formed, 
by  the  will  and  wisdom  of  God,  for  a  particular  end  connected  with 
his  universal  government :  he  had  therefore  a  beginning,  that  is,  there 
was  no  person  uniting  in  himself  the  nature  of  God  and  man  from 
eternity ;  and  the  person  so  constituted  was  necessarily  inferior  to  Him 
who  in  this  sense  created  him.  And  the  Lord  Jesus,  thus  constituted, 
was  inferior  to  the  Father  of  all,  not  only  as  to  his  person,  but  as  to 
his  office.  He  was  appointed,  delegated,  sent  to  the  fulfilment  of  it. 
He  was  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  but  not  an  independent 
Mediator,  nor  a  Mediator  provided  by  man ;  but  a  Mediator  jirovided 
by  the  mercy  and  wisdom  and  power  of  God.  —  James  Carlile  : 
Jesus  Christ  the  Great  God  our  Saviour,  pp.  317-18. 

Because  Christ  is  thus  sent  by  the  Father  with  a  commission  what 
to  do  and  teach,  it  follows,  even  without  the  direct  scriptural  state- 
ment of  the  fact,  that  he  is  subordinate  to  the  Father ;  since,  without 
contradiction,  he  who  sends  is  greater  than  he  who  is  sent.  The 
attempt  to  explain  such  declarations  of  our  Lord  as  the  following, 
"My  Father  is  greater  than  I"  (John  xiv.  28),  on  the  simple  ground 
of  his  humanity,  would  be,  in  our  apprehension,  entirely  unsatisfactory ; 
for  his  subordination  to  the  Father,  as  the  receiver  to  the  giver,  extends 
to  those  offices  that  are  manifestly  above  the  capacity  of  a  finite  nature. 
Of  that  subordination  of  the  Son  to  the  Father  which  runs  through  all 
the  scriptural  representations  concerning  him,  we  have  no  new  expla- 
nation to  give ;  for  we  regard  the  old  explanation,  that  of  official 
investiture,  as  abundantly  sufficient.  The  Son  receives  from  the 
Father  his  mediatorial  office  in  all  its  parts ;  he  acts  under  him  and 
by  his  authority,  and  is  thus  less  than  the  Father ;  not  merely  as  "  the 
man  Christ  Jesus,"  but  also  as  "God  manifest  in  the  flesh."  But 
the  question  still  remains.  How  can  any  but  a  Divine  Being  receive  the 
olRce  wliich  the  Father  commits  to  the  Son  ?  —  Professor  E.  P. 
B.uiRows  :  Article  2,  in  the  BibliotJveca  Sacra  for  October,  1854 ; 
Ti>l.  xi.  pp.  700-1. 

By  "a  Divine  Being,"  tlie  writer  evidently  means  God,  or  a  beinj^  equal 
to  God;  for  he  adopts  not  tlie  Arian  hypothesis.  But  would  it  not  be  more 
rational  to  ask,  How  could  a  being  who  is  infinitely  powerful,  and  all-perfect 
in  himself,  have  committed  to  him  by  another  person  any  authority  or  office 
whatever  y 

38 


446  THE  MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  CILRIST, 


SECT.  Vn.  —  THE  MORAL  CHAR-\CTER  OF  CHRIST,  THAT  OF  A  FLNIlK 
AND   DEPENDENT  BEING. 


Jesus  alone,  of  all  the  human  race,  by  the  strength  and  light  imparted  from  above, 
was  exempt  from  sin,  and  rendered  superior  to  temptation.  —  IIobsley. 

Such  was  thy  truth,  and  such  thy  zeal; 
Such  deference  to  thy  Father's  will. 

Cold  movintains  and  the  midnight  ur 
Witnessed  the  fervor  of  thy  prayer. 

Isaac  Watts. 


§   1.    As   EXHIBITED    IN   HIS    IIabITUAL  PiETY. 

Among  the  qualities  by  which  Jesus  is  so  peculiarly  distinguished, 
there  is  none  wliich  more  attracts  our  observation,  and  commands  our 
applause,  than  a  vigorous  and  fervent  spirit  of  piety,  an  entire  resigna- 
tion to  the  will  of  God,  an  im])licit  submission  to  his  pleasure.  Nor 
IS  there  any  princl])le  which  he  inculcates  more  earnestly  and  more 
frequently  u])on  his  disciplen  than  the  necessity  and  propriety  of  having 
recourse  to  God  in  prayer,  of  absolute  dependence  upon  him,  of  the 
most  ardent  love  and  filial  awe  toward  him,  of  the  most  anxious  and 
incessant  endeavor  to  obey  his  will  and  to  promote  his  glory.  The 
Being  whom  he  thus  professed  to  honor,  and  whom  he  enjoined 
his  followers  to  adore,  was  undoubtedly  the  Jehorah  of  Israel, 
the  Source  to  which  Moses  referred  his  authority,  the  Founder  of  the 
civil  and  religious  polity  established  among  the  Jews.  —  BlsliOP 
Maltijy  :  Jlliistraiions  of  the  Tnilh  of  the.  Christian  Rtligion, 
chaj).  vi.  p.  260. 

It  is  apparent,  from  multii)lied  expressions  of  Jesus  and  from  all 
his  acts,  that  the  will  of  his  Father,  which  he  was  entirely  certoin  that 
he  perfectly  understood,  was  the  only  rule  and  the  living  jjower  of  his 
conduct.  To  God,  as  the  Source  of  his  sjnritual  life,  was  his  soul  ever 
tuiTied ;  and  this  direction  of  his  mind  was  a  m;»tter  of  indispensable 
necessity  to  him.  It  was  his  meat  and  his  drink  to  do  the  will  of  his 
Father.  Witliout  uniting  himself  to  God  wlioUy,  consecrating  himself 
to  God  unreservedly,  feeling  himself  to  be  perfectly  one  witii  God,  he 
could  not  liave  lived ;  he  could  not  have  been  at  peace  in  his  spirit  a 

single  instiuit In  every  thing  which  he  said  and  did,  he  pointed 

to  the  Fountain  of  trutli  and  goodness;  to  the  Father,  who  permitted 


THAT  OF  A  FINITE  AND  DEPENDENT  BEING.       447 

-.he  Son  to  have  in  himself,  and  to  exhibit  to  man,  a  heavenly  life  that 
was  pure,  perfect,  and  self-sufficient.  —  Charles  Ullm.\nn  :  Sinless 
Character  of  Jesus,  sects,  iv.  and  viii. ;  in  Selections  of  German 
Literature,  pp.  407,  444. 

The  piety  of  Christ  was  uniform  and  complete.  His  supreme  love 
to  God  was  divinely  manifested  in  the  cheerfulness  with  which  he 
undertook  the  most  arduous,  and  at  the  same  time  the  most  benev  > 
lent,  of  all  employments ;  and,  of  course,  that  which  was  most  pleasing 
to  him,  and  most  honorable  to  his  name.  His  faith  was  equally 
conspicuous  in  the  unshaken  constancy  with  which  he  encountereil  the 
innumerable  difficulties  in  his  progress ;  his  patience,  in  the  quietness 
of  spirit  with  which  he  bore  every  afffiction  ;  and  his  submission,  in  hia 
ready  acquiescence  in  his  Father's  will,  while  requmng  him  to  pass 
through  the  deepest  humiliation,  pain,  and  sorrow.  However  hum- 
bling, however  distressing,  his  allotments  were,  even  in  his  agony  in 
the  garden  and  in  the  succeeding  agonies  of  the  cross,  he  never 
uttered  a  complaint.  But,  though  afflicted  beyond  example,  he  exhi- 
bited a  more  perfect  submission  than  is  manifested  by  the  most  pious 
men  under  small  and  ordinary  trials.  No  inhabitant  of  this  world 
ever  showed  such  an  entire  reverence  for  God,  on  any  occasion,  as  he 
discovered  on  all  occasions.  He  gave  his  Father,  at  all  times,  the 
glory  of  his  mission,  his  doctrines,  and  his  miracles ;  seized  every 
proper  opportunity  to  set  forth,  in  terms  pre-eminently  pure  and  sub- 
lime, the  excellence  of  the  divine  charactei-:  and  spoke  uniformly  in 
the  most  reverential  manner  of  the  word,  the  law,  and  the  ordinances, 
of  God.  At  the  same  time,  he  was  constant  and  fervent  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God.  —  Dr.  Timothy  Dwight  :  Sermon  5 1 ;  in  Theology 
Explained,  vol.  ii.  pp.  155-6. 

That  Christ  was  properly  a  human  person  will  appear,  if  we  con- 
sider the  state  and  circumstances  m  which  he  was  placed  while  he 
lived  in  this  world.  For,  1.  He  was  fixed  in  a  state  of  dependence. 
This  he  repeatedly  and  plainly  acknowledged.  "  Then  Jesus  answered 
and  said  unto  them.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  the  Son  can  do 
nothing  of  himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do."  Again  he  said, 
"  When  ye  have  lifted  up  the  Son  of  man,  then  shall  ye  know  that  I 
am  he,  and  that  I  do  nothing  of  myself;  but,  as  my  Father  hath 
taught  me,  I  speak  these  things."  'And  again,  "  The  words  I  speak 
unto  you  I  speak  not  of  myself ;  but  the  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me, 
he  doetli  the  works."  These  are  plain  expressions  of  liis  dependence 
upon  his  Father.     And  it  was  upon  this  ground  that  he  so  frequently 


448  THE   MORAL   CUARACXEU  OF  CHRIST, 

and  devoutly  prayed  to  his  Father.  Prayer  always  implies  dependence 
upon  him  to  whom  it  is  addressed.  The  pra}ers  of  Christ,  therefore, 
prove  tliat  he  lived  and  moved  and  had  his  being  in  God  as  really  as 
other  men,  and  was  as  much  dependent  upon  him  for  divine  assistance, 
direction,  and  preservation,  through  the  whole  course  of  his  life,  as 
any  other  of  the  human  race,  lie  prayed  for  divine  direction  in  the 
choice  of  his  twelve  disciples,  lie  prayed  for  divine  assistance  to 
raise  Laziriis  from  the  grave.  lie  j^rayed  for  Peter,  and  for  all  his 
ajiostles  and  followers,  at  the  last  passover  he  ever  attended.  And  he 
prayed  to  be  divinely  strengthened  and  supported  through  all  his 
agonies  in  the  garden  and  his  sufferings  on  the  cross.  His  continual 
prayers  were  a  continual  and  practical  expression  of  his  state  of  de- 
pendence during  his  continuance  on  earth ;  and  his  dependence  was 
a  demonstration  of  his  real  humanity.  —  Dr.  Nathanael  Emmons  : 
Works,  vol.  iv.  pp.  597-8. 

The  principal  passages  to  which  Dr.  Ejimons  refers  are  John  v.  19;  viii. 
28;xiv.  10.  Luke  vi.  12.  John  xi.  41,  42.  Luke  xxii.  32.  John  xvii.  Mutt, 
xxvi.  36-44;  xxvii.  46.  Maik  xiv.  32-39;  xv.  34.  Luke  xxii.  41-46;  xxiii. 
34,  46. 

He  [Jesus]  always  withdrew  at  once  from  the  crowd  when  his  work 
was  done.  He  sought  solitude,  he  shrunk  from  observation  ;  in  fact, 
almost  the  only  enjoyment  which  he  seemed  really  to  love  was  his 
lonely  ramble  at  midnight  for  rest  and  prayer.  He  spent  whole  nights 
thus,  we  are  told.  And  it  is  not  surprising,  that,  after  the  heated 
crowds  and  exhausting  labors  of  the  diiy,  he  should  love  to  retire  to 
silence  and  seclusion,  to  enjoy  the  cool  and  balmy  air,  the  refreshing 
stillness,  and  all  the  beauties  and  glories  of  midnight,  among  the 
solitudes  of  the  Galilean  hills ;  to  find  there  happy  communion  with 
his  Father,  and  to  gather  fresh  strength  for  the  labors  and  trials  that 
yet  remained.  —  Jacob  Abbott:  The  Comer-sloiie,  p.  61- 

Not  less  indicative  of  his  [Christ's]  humanity  was  his  perfect 
dependence.  He  was  dependent  on  his  parents,  and  indebted  to  their 
wulfhfulncss  and  love,  and  labors  and  bounty.  He  was  dependent  on 
divine  providence,  and  looked  to  its  daily  supplies.  He  was  a  man  of 
prayer ;  and  this  alone  is  proof  that  he  was  sensible  of  his  dependence 
on  God.  He  made  the  frank  avowal,  "  I  can  do  nothing  of  myself." 
So  absolute  was  his  dependence  that  he  could  promise  himself  nothing 
but  what  his  heavenly  Father  chose  to  give  him  from  day  to  day. 

In  the  character  of  Christ,  the  love  of  God  was  ever  su])reme 

and  ever  constant.     He  could  not  love  God  more  fervently  or  more 


THAT  OF  A   FINITE  AND  DEPENDENT  BEINQ.       449 

constantly  than  he  did.  His  intellectual  and  active  powers  hud  their 
limits ;  but  to  the  full  extent  of  them  he  loved.  He  had  no  other, 
he  knew  no  other,  God.  There  was  not  an  idol  in  his  heart,  nor  an 
idolatrous  thought  or  desire.  When  we  read  hife  biograjihy,  the 
delightful  impression  everywhere  comes  upon  us,  that  he  enjoyed  a 
constant  sense  of  God's  presence.  God  was  in  all  his  thoughts ;  nor 
did  such  a  sin  ever  lurk  in  his  bosom  as  forgetfulness  of  his  Father  in 
heaven.  His  affections  toward  him  were  affections  of  love  in  all  its 
sweet  combinations  of  esteem,  attachment,  gratitude,  and  joy,  and  so 
cheerfully  indulged  that  commimion  with  him  was  his  great  solace  and 
comfort,  and  the  hiding  of  his  face  was  the  bitterest  ingredient  ever 
mingled  in  his  cup.  He  had  but  one  heart,  and  that  heart  was  God's,  — 
a  whole  heart,  a  pure  heart,  a  heart  never  debased  by  an  unworthy 
thought ;  a  throne  that  was  never  usurped  by  a  rival  deity ;  a  marble 
tablet,  pm-e  and  burnished  from  its  native  quarry,  on  which  was  never 
engraven  any  tale  of  shame,  and  where  suspicion  never  threw  its 
doubtful  shadow.  .  .  .  None  so  much  as  he  ever  dehghted  themselves 
in  the  diligent  study  of  the  divine  nature  and  glory,  or  so  much 
enjoyed  the  divine  love.  His  affections  toward  God  were  eminently 
filial.  He  was  the  only-begotten  Son,  who  "  lay  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father : "  the  everlasting  arms  were  his  refuge  and  his  home.  His 
first  and  best  thoughts,  his  first  and  warmest  affections,  his  most 
delighted  admiration,  his  most  peaceful  confidence  and  profoimd  reve- 
rence, were  attracted  toward  his  Father  wliich  is  in  heaven 

His  peculiar  character  is  most  emphaticixUy  written  in  the  words,  "  He 
went  about  doing  good."  It  was  an  art  he  had  studied  well,  and  it 
was  the  care  and  lousiness  of  every  day.  He  aimed  to  be  harmless  ; 
but  he  had  higher  aims.  The  infinite  God  was  his  example :  he  was 
perfect  as  his  Father  in  heaven  was  perfect.  Wherever  he  went,  he 
wrapped  himself  in  the  mantle  of  that  love,  the  very  fold  and  hem  of 
which  were  a  refuge  for  the  wants  and  woes  of  men.  ...  So  intent,  so 
dominant,  was  his  purpose,  that  he  made  the  first  and  the  last  end 

of  liis  existence  to  labor  for  God  and  man His  hfe  was  one 

of  peculiar  intercourse  and  near  communion  with  God.  Many  a 
time  did  he  rise  up  a  great  while  before  day,  and  retire  to  some 
selected  mountain,  or  sequestered  brook  or  grove,  there  to  enj  y 
BoHtary  intercourse  with  his  Father  in  heaven.  Whole  nights  he 
often  employed  in  prayer.  Forty  days  of  fasting  and  prayer  were 
his  preparations  for  his  public  ministry.  He  loved  to  be  alone  with 
God.     No  employment,  no  society,  no  trials,  ever  prevented  his  inter* 

38* 


450  THE  MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST, 

course  with  God  and  heaven.  He  and  his  Father  were  one,  if  foi 
nothing  but  the  uninterrupted  fellowship  which  existed  between  them. 
Things  unseen  and  eternal  were  the  things  he  looked  at.  lie  often 
spoke  of  them,  and  of  the  beauty  and  riches  and  glory  of  them,  and 
of  heavenly  thrones  and  heavenly  joys.  "With  intense  interest  and 
delight  he  sjjoke  of  them,  and  with  pensive  thoughts  that  thty  were 
at  a  distance,  and  with  sweet  anticipations  that  in  a  httle  while  he 

should  go  to  the  Father. There  never  was  any  reason  why 

men  should  not  be  as  holy  as  Christ,  either  in  the  nature  of  holiness, 
or  their  own  nature ;  either  in  the  binding  force  of  the  moral  law,  or 
the  precepts,  prohibitions,  and  sjjirit  of  the  gospel.  There  is  a  cause 
for  the  imperfection  of  Clu-istians,  but  there  is  no  reason  for  it.  The 
cause  is  their  own  sinful  nature  and  love  of  wickedness.  —  Dr. 
Gardiner  Spring:  Glory  of  Christ,  voL  i.  pp.  81-2,  105-7,  114-15, 
125.  129. 

§  2.     As   EXHIBITED   AMID    TEMPTATIONS. 

How  are  we  to  understind  his  [Christ's]  first  sufferings  immediately 
after  his  ba])tism  ?  It  would  be  forcing  common  sense  itself  to  suppose 
it  not  a  real  man,  but  a  personage  of  a  much  more  exalted  nature,  that 
was  afflicted  with  the  sensation  of  extreme  hunger,  that  he  might  be 
induced  to  abuse  and  misapply  the  divine  power  of  which  he  found 
himself  possessed.  As  unnatural  is  it  to  suppose,  that  all  the  glory  of 
this  terrestrial  globe  was  presented  as  a  temptation  to  one  who  was 
of  a  nature  so  far  surpassing  not  only  that  of  men,  but  of  angels  and 
all  created  beings  whatever.  The  prospect,  how  dazzling  soever  to 
human  sense,  could  not  possibly  be  a  trial  to  sucli  a  being. ...  It  is  in 
respect  of  his  human  nature  that  our  Saviour  is  set  before  us  as  a 
pattern  for  our  imitation.  His  whole  deportment  through  life  wit- 
nessed a  strong  sense  of  duty  to  his  Father,  and  an  unremitted  exercise 
of  benevolent  affections  towards  the  human  race.  And  as  he  lived,  so 
are  we  exhorted  to  Hve ;  for  in  piety  and  true  goodness  we  are  capable 
of  imiUiting  him.  Nor  are  we  called  upon  to  do  more  than  it  is  Mir 
duty  to  do,  more  than  human  nature  is  cajjable  of,  more  tlian  what  we 
know  he  as  man  did,  when  we  are  exhorted  to  live  as  he  lived,  "  doing 
justice,  loving  mercy,  and  walking  humbly  before  God."  But  conceive 
him,  with  regard  to  his  behavior  under  those  circumstances  which  to 
us  are  trials  of  integrity,  to  have  had  a  nature  diflbrent  from  and  far 
ou])erior  to  ours,  and  you  can  no  longer  consider  him  as  excmplif\ing 
our  duty  by  his  own  conduct,  or  derive  from  it  encouragement  to  hope 


THAT   OF  A  FINITE  AND  DEPENDENT  BEING.  451 

for  success  in  the  like  temi^tations  assaulting  our  weaker  nature.  We 
may,  on  this  supposition,  admire  and  adore  his  vastly  superior  excel- 
lence; but  we  shall  be  ever  discouraged  in  the  pursuit  of  virtue, 
through  difficulties  that  are  looked  upon  to  requii-e  more  than  human 
nature  to  struggle  under  with  any  hope  of  success.  —  Dr.  Benjamin 
Dawson:  Illustration  of  Texts,  pp.  179-81. 

These  remarks,  though  levelled  at  the  high  Arian  views  of  our  Lctd, 
seem  to  have  still  greater  force  if  applied  to  the  Trinitarian  doctrine  of 
Christ's  person. 

The  most  important  passages  which  treat  of  the  sinlessness  of 
Jesus  are  2  Cor.  v.  21;  1  John  iii.  3,  5;  Heb.  iv,  15;  1  Pet.  i.  19. 
The  texts  also  in  which  it  is  said  that  he  was  obedient  to  the  will  and 
command  of  God  belong  in  this  connection ;  as  Heb.  v.  8,  and  many 
passages  in  John.  The  virtue  of  Christ,  in  resisting  steadfastly  all  the 
temptations  to  sin,  acquires  a  real  value  and  merit  only  on  admission 
that  he  could  have  sinned.  This  opinion  is,  in  fact,  scriptural ;  for  we 
are  frequently  exhorted  to  imitate  the  example  of  Jesus,  in  his  virtue, 
his  conquest  of  sinful  desires,  &c.  But  how  could  this  be  done,  if  he 
had  none  of  those  inducements  to  sin  which  we  have,  and  if  it  had 
been  impossible  for  him  to  commit  it  ?  Improvement  in  knowledge 
and  in  perfections  of  every  kind  is  ascribed  in  Scripture  to  Christ; 
and  Paul  says  that  through  sufferings  he  constantly  improved  in 
obedience,  Heb.  v.  8.  We  read  expressly  that  Clmst  was  tried,  i.  e., 
tempted  to  sin ;  but  that  he  overcame  the  temptation.  Matt.  iv.  1,  seq. 
This  temptation  took  place  shortly  before  his  entrance  upon  his  public 
office,  and  tended  to  prepare  him  for  it.  It  was  intended  to  exercise 
and  confirm  him  in  virtue,  and  in  obedience  to  God.  But  what  object 
could  there  have  been  in  this  temptation,  if  it  had  been  impossible  for 
Jesus  to  yield  to  it  ?  and  what  merit  would  there  have  been  in  his 
resistance  ?  No  difference  is  made  in  the  thing  itself,  and  in  its  con- 
sequences, by  considering  it,  with  Farmer  and  others,  as  a  vision  and 
parable,  and  not  as  a  real  occurrence.  If  it  was  impossible  that  Christ, 
as  a  man,  should  sin,  it  would  be  hard  to  find  what  the  Bible  means 
when  it  speaks  of  his  being  tempted,  and  commends  him  for  over- 
coming temptation.  —  Abridged  from  George  C.  Knapp  :  Christian 
Theology,  sect,  xciii.  UI. 

Had  Jesus  made  use  of  miraculous  power  for  the  pui-pose  of 
exemjjting  himself  from  those  sufferings  which  were  laid  upon  him  by 
his  Father,  this  would  have  impaired  the  perfection  of  his  obedience, 
and  would  have  been  a  positive  non-compliance  with  the  appointment 


452  THE  MORAL  CnARACTER  OF  CHRIST, 

of  his  Fdth&r ;  for  )ou  -will  observe  that  his  situation  in  the  remote 
wilderness,  and  the  consequent  hunger  which  his  distance  from  the 
supplies  of  food  brought  upon  him,  was  not  a  thuig  of  his  own  doing. 
He  was  led  by  the  Spirit  into  his  present  situation :  there  he  was  by 
the  will  of  God.  It  was  not  for  him  to  do  any  thing,  but  to  wait  the 
issue  of  God's  counsel  concernuig  him.  The  language  for  him  was, 
"  My  Father  brought  me  here,  and  -will  carry  me  in  safety  out 
again."  —  Abridged  from  Dr.  Thomas  Chal^lers  on  Matt.  iv.  4 ;  in 
Select  f Forks,  voL  iiL  p.  582. 

This  is  probably  a  fair  representation  of  the  feelings  of  the  tempted  and 
holy  One  of  Nazareth;  and,  if  it  is,  how  can  it  be  reconcilable  witii  the  doc- 
trine that  he  was  not  only  a  man,  but  Almighty  God,  the  co-equal  of  the 
Father  in  power  and  glory?  How  unsuitable  and  unbecoming  to  say  of 
the  all-sufficient  and  infinite  Jeliovah  that  he  was  led  into  a  particular  situa- 
tion by  the  Spirit  of  God ;  that,  by  his  acting  a  selfish  part,  he  would  have 
impaired  the  perfection  of  his  obedience  to  the  will  of  his  Father;  and  that 
the  appropriate  language  for  such  a  being  was,  "  My  Father  brought  mo 
here,  and  will  carry  me  in  safety  out  again"!  The  figment  of  a  double 
nature  —  that  of  a  divine  and  a  human,  in  the  last  of  which  alone  Jesus 
here  acted  —  will  not  remove  the  difficulties  inherent  in  the  orthodox  inter- 
pretation; for  of  what  use  could  the  omnipotent  nature  of  Jesus  have  been 
to  him  as  a  man,  if  he  felt  it  necessary  to  have  recourse  in  his  trials  and 
temptations,  not  to  his  own  infinite  perfections,  but  to  the  providence  or 
the  power  of  his  Father?  We  are  forced  to  employ  words  having  an  air  of 
in-everence;  but  the  fault  lies  in  the  character  of  the  dogma  we  oppose. 

He  [our  SaA-iour]  was  so  entirely  devoted  to  his  Father's  business, 
that  half  the  readers  of  liis  life  do  not  imagine  that  he  had  any  of  his 
own.  But  we  must  not  forget  that  he  was  a  man,  with  all  the  feel- 
ings, and  exposed  to  all  the  temptations,  of  men.  He  might  have 
formed  the  scheme  of  being  a  Napoleon,  if  he  had  chosen.  The 
world  was  before  him.  He  had  the  opportunity ;  and,  so  far  as  we 
can  undL'rst;ind  the  mysterious  description  of  his  temptxxtion,  he  w"as 
urged  to  make  the  attempt.  .  .  .  Christians  seem  to  think,  tluit  his 
bright  example  is  only,  to  a  very  limited  extent,  an  example  for  them. 
But  we  must  remember  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  man.  His  powers 
•were  human  powers ;  his  feelings  were  human  feelings ;  and  hia 
example  is  strictly  and  exactly  an  example  for  all  the  world.  — 
Jacob  Ahboit  :  The  Corner-stone,  pp.  49,  oO. 

However  interpreted,  the  moral  purport  of  the  [tempt;xtIon]  scene 
remains  the  s;imc, —  tiie  intimation  that  the  strongest  and  most  lively 
impressioas  were  made  upon  the  mind  of  Jesus,  to  withdraw  him 


THAT  OF  A  FINITE  AND  DEPENDENT   BEING.  453 

from  the  purely  religious  end  of  his  being  upon  earth,  to  transform 
him  from  the  author  of  a  moral  revolution  to  be  slowly  wrought  by 
the  introduction  of  new  principles  of  virtue,  and  new  rules  for  indi- 
vidual and  social  happiness,  to  the  vulgar  station  of  one  of  the  great 
monarchs  or  conquerors  of  mankind;  to  degrade  him  from  a  being 
who  was  to  offer  to  man  the  gift  of  eternal  life,  and  elevate  his  nature 
to  a  previous  fitness  for  that  exalted  destiny,  to  one  whose  influence 
over  his  own  generation  might  have  been  more  instantaneously  mani- 
fest, but  which  could  have  been  as  Httle  permanently  beneficial  as  that 
of  any  other  of  those  remarkable  names  which,  especially  in  the  East, 
have  blazed  for  a  time,  and  expired.  —  H.  H.  MlLMAN :  History  of 
Christianity,  vol.  i.  p.  1<56. 

The  remarks  from  Abbott  and  from  Milman  might  have  proceeded 
from  Uuitariaii  pens;  for  surely  the  writers  must  for  a  monieiit  have  for- 
gotten their  orthodoxy,  and  felt  persuaded  that  the  great  personage  who 
resisted  the  temptations  of  worldly  ambition  was  a  being  stinctly  human  in 
his  nature,,  and  not  the  Highest  of  intelligences,  to  whom  the  universe  itself, 
with  all  its  glories,  can  ofier  nothing  which  he  does  not  inherently  possess. 
To  us  it  is  inconceivable,  that,  on  the  supposition  of  his  having  been,  in  one 
of  his  alleged  natures,  absolutely  perfect,  Jesus  could  ever  have  been  the 
subject  of  trial  and  temptation;  that  his  mind  could  ever  have  been  in  the 
slightest  degree  impressed  with  the  dazzliug,  but  unsubstantial,  honors  of 
an  earthly  Messiahship. 

Inward  suggestions  present  the  usual  enticements  to  sin.  This 
being  the  ordinary  course  of  divine  providence,  the  most  natural  inter- 
pretation [of  the  narrative  of  Christ's  temptation  in  Matthew]  is  that 
which  accords  with  it.  Assuming,  then,  that  the  series  of  temptations 
was  internal,  though  represented  in  the  outward  form  of  action,  the 
subjective  reahty  justifies  the  living  external  representation.  A  certain 
train  of  thought,  embodying  the  current  but  incorrect  views  of  the 
times,  suggested  itself  to  the  spotless  mind  of  Jesus,  which  he  at  once 
repelled  without  harboring.  It  is  scarcely  possible  to  realize  the 
nature  and  severity  of  this  trial,  without  having  di^stinct  ideas  of 
the  manhood  of  Jesus.  He  possessed  all  the  natural  feelings  of  the 
human  heart.  He  was  about  to  enter  on  public  life.  His  contempo- 
raries associated  certain  ideas  with  Messiah.  They  expected  that  he 
would  be  clothed  with  extraordinary  authority.  Thej-  thought  that 
he  would  be  endued  with  supernatural  powers.  They  looked  for  a 
temporal  prince,  wielding  the  powers  with  wliich  he  was  invested  for 
hL<J  own  advantage,  reheving  his  wants,  protecting  himself  from  injury, 


454  THE  MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST, 

gratifying  his  o'wti  desires,  and  exalting  himself  to  the  highest  earthly 
dominion.  These  were  the  sentiments  of  the  time,  which  constituted 
the  chief  elements  of  the  suggestions  presented  to  the  mind  of  Jesus. 
The  ideas  were  artfully  cliosen,  and  were  directed  in  some  inexplicable 
way  by  the  powers  of  darkness  against  the  sinless  soul  of  the  Kedeemer. 
Thev  formed  the  most  powerful  assault  that  could  have  been  made 
upon  him,  at  the  very  crisis  of  his  history,  when  he  was  about  to 
appear  in  his  pubUc  character,  and  found  himself  in  a  position  which 
opened  up  prospects  of  the  greatest  magnificence,  —  the  mysterious 
possession  of  the  divine  nature.  The  time  and  place  are  real,  and 
literally  correct.  Jesus  was  in  the  wilderness,  preparing  liimself  by 
inward  medit;ition  for  the  great  work  of  his  public  ministry.  —  Dr. 
S.  Davidson  :  Introduction  to  the  JVew  TestameiU,  vol  i.  p.  98. 

The  impressiveiiess  and  value  of  the  representiition  here  given  ot  the 
temptations  of  Jesus  seem  to  us  to  depend  altogether  on  the  conception, 
that  he  did  not  possess  anj'  other  than  a  finite  soul,  capable  of  being  turned 
aside  from  the  path  of  duty. 

§  3.   As  EXHIBITED  IN  HIS  Last  Soffekikgs. 

We  find  our  Lord  resorting  to  prayer  in  his  last  extremity,  and 
with  an  earnestness,  I  had  almost  said  a  vehemence,  of  devotion 
proportioned  to  the  occasion.  .  .  .  Throughout  the  whole  scene,  the 
constant  conclusion  of  his  prayer  was,  "Not  my  will,  but  thine,  be 
done."  .  .  .  Prajer,  with  our  blessed  Lord  himself,  was  a  refuge  from 
the  storm.  Almost  every  word  he  uttered,  during  that  tremendous 
scene,  was  prayer ;  —  prayer  the  most  earnest,  the  most  urgent ;  re- 
peated, continued,  proceeding  from  the  recesses  of  his  soul ;  private, 
solitary :  prayer  for  deliverance ;  prayer  for  strength  ;  above  every 
thing,  prayer  for  resignation.  —  Dr.  William  Palky  :  Sermons  on 
Several  Subjects,  No,  VIIL 

The  whole  scene  of  his  [Christ's]  a])proaching  trial,  his  incvital)le 
deaths  is  present  to  his  mind ;  and  for  an  instant  he  prays  to  the 
Almighty  Father  to  release  him  from  the  task,  which,  however  of 
such  iirportiince  to  the  welfare  of  mankind,  is  to  be  accomjjlished 
by  such  fearful  means.  The  next  inst;uit,  however,  the  momentjiry 
weakness  is  subdued;  and,  though  the  agony  is  so  severe  that  the 
sweat  falls  like  large  dro])S  of  blood  to  the  ground,  [he]  resigns 
himself  at  once  to  the  will  of  God.  —  H.  H.  MlLM.VN :  Histori/  of 
Christianity,  vol  i.  p.  332. 


THAT  OF  A   FINITE  AXD   DEPENDENT  BEING.  455 

He  [Jesus  Christ]  looked  forward  to  the  accumulation  of  sufferings 
which  he  knew  would  attend  his  last  hours,  with  feelings  on  the  rack 
of  agon)',  with  a  heart  "  exceedingly  sorrowful  even  unto  death ; "  but 
with  a  meek  and  resigned  resolution,  a  tender  and  trembling  constancy, 
unspeakably  superior  in  moral  grandeur  to  the  stem  bravery  of  the 
proudest  hero.  "  I  have  a  bajjtism  to  be  baptized  with,  and  how  am 
I  held  in  anguish  till  it  be  accomplished !  Now  is  my  soul  distressed, 
and  what  shall  I  say  ?  Father,  save  me  from  this  hour !  But  for  this 
cause  came  I  to  this  hour.  Father,  glorify^  thy  name !  "  Luke  xii.  50 ; 
John  xii.  27.  Through  his  whole  life  he  was  devoted  to  prayer ;  and, 
when  his  awful  hour  was  come,  "  he  was  in  an  agony,  and  prayed  more 
earnestly,  and  his  sweat  was  as  drops  of  blood  falling  upon  the  ground," 
Luke  xxii.  44.  He  was  "  sorrowful,  and  overwhelmed  with  anguish, 
and  distressed  to  the  utmost,"  Matt.  xxvi.  37 ;  Mark  xiv.  33.  "  He 
fell  upon  his  face,  and  prayed,  and  said,  My  Father,  if  it  be  possible, 
let  this  cup  pass  from  me !  Nevertheless,  not  as  I  will,  but  as  thou 
wiliest,"  Matt.  xxvi.  39.  In  his  last  hours,  with  a  bitterness  of  soul 
more  excruciating  than  any  bodily  sufferings,  he  felt  as  if  deserted  by 
his  God  and  Father;  while  yet  he  promised  heaven  to  a  penitent 
fellow-sufferer,  and  died  in  an  act  of  devotional  confidence,  triumphing 
that  his  work  was  finished.  Thus  he  died :  but  he  rose  again,  that  he 
might  be  Lord  of  both  the  dead  and  the  Hving ;  and  he  ascended  to 
his  Father  and  oiu:  Father,  his  God  and  our  God.  This  was  "the 
man  Christ  Jesus;  a  man  demonstrated  from  God  by  nuracles  and 
prodigies  and  signs  which  God  did  by  him,  —  a  man  ordained  by  God 
to  be  the  Judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead,"  1  Tim.  ii.  5  j  Acts  ii.  22, 
xvii.  31,  xiii.  38.  It  is  delightful  to  dwell  on  the  character  of  this 
unrivalled  man ;  not  only  because  in  no  other,  since  the  foundation  of 
the  world,  has  the  intellectual  and  moral  perfection  of  our  nature  been 
exhibited,  but  because  the  contemplation  of  such  excellence  refreshes 
and  elevates  the  mind,  and  encourages  to  the  beneficial  eftbrt  of  imita- 
tion  It  was  as  a  man  that  he  suffered ;  and  as  a  man  he  felt 

his  sufferings,  and  prayed  for  their  alleviation,  or  for  dehverance  from 
them.  "  Save  me  from  this  hour !  If  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass 
from  me ! "  The  desire  of  relief  sprang  from  the  very  necessity  of 
human  feelings,  —  feelings  which  proved  him  to  be  not  an  enthusiast, 
nor  a  deranged  person ;  and  the  prayer  for  rehef  impHed  that  Hmita- 
tion  of  knowledge  which  is  inseparable  from  the  condition  of  a  created 
natui'e,  and  which  belonged  necessarily  to  the  man  Christ  Jesus.  Yet 
that  this  natural  desire  of  deliverance  from  unutterable  pain  made  no 


456  THE  MORAL  CnARACTER  OF  CHRIST, 

infringement  on  the  perfection  of  his  creature-holiness  is  manifest 
from  its  being  combined  with  the  most  absolute  deference  to  tlie  will 
of  God.  —  Dr.  J.  P.  Smith  :  Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Messiah, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  96-7,  110. 

In  the  arid  deserts  of  so-called  orthodoxy,  sentiments  such  as  these  are 
beautiful  and  refreshing,  but  in  our  opinion  diameti-ically  opposed  to  tlie 
notion  that  the  meek  and  holy  being,  who,  amidst  the  severity  of  liis  suffer- 
ings, leaned  on  the  arm  of  Omnipotence  for  support,  was  himself  omnipotent 
and  impassible. 

In  jjrayer  and  retirement,  Christ  had  prepared  himself  for  the 
beginning  of  his  public  ministry :  in  prayer  and  retirement,  he  now 
pre])ared  to  close  his  calling  on  earth.  As  then,  so  now,  before  enter- 
uig  ujjon  the  outward  conflict,  he  passed  through  it  in  the  inward 
struggles  of  his  soul.  Then  he  had  in  spirit  gained  the  victory,  before 
he  appeared  openly  among  men  a  conqueror :  now  the  conquest  of 
suffering  was  achieved  within,  before  tlie  final,  outward  triumph. 
Arrived  at  the  garden,  he  took  apart  Peter,  James,  and  John,  his 
three  best-loved  discijiles,  to  be  the  lionored  witnesses  of  his  prayer, 
and  to  pray  with  liim.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  we  could  not 
have  so  full  an  account  of  this  as  of  his  prayer  for  his  disciples,  John 
xvii.  In  the  pains  of  suffering  that  are  pressing  uj)on  him,  he  prays, 
"  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me."  But  this  feel- 
ing could  not  for  a  moment  shake  his  submission  to  the  divine  will. 
All  other  feelings  are  absorbed  in  the  fundamentid  longing,  "  Thy 
will  be  done."  The  Divinity  is  distinguished  from  the  Humanity; 
and,  by  this  distinction,  their  unity,  in  the  subordination  of  the  one  to 
the  other,  was  to  be  made  prominent.  As  a  man,  he  might  wish 
to  be  spared  the  sufferings  that  awaited  him,  even  though  from  a 
higher  point  of  view  he  saw  their  necessity ;  just  as  a  Cliristian  may 
be  convinced  that  he  ought  to  make  a  certain  sacrifice  in  the  service 
of  God,  and  yet,  in  darker  moments,  his  j)ure]y  hiunan  feelings  may 
rise  against  it,  until  his  conviction,  and  his  will  guided  by  his  convic- 
tion, at  last  prevail.  It  was  not  merely  that  Christ's  physiad  nature 
had  to  struggle  with  death,  and  such  a  death ;  but  his  soul  had  to  be 
moved  to  its  depths  by  sympathy  with  the  sufferings  of  mankind  on 
account  of  sin.  Thus  the  wish  miglit  arise  witliin  liim,  as  a  man,  to 
be  spared  that  bitter  cup ;  only  on  condition,  however,  that  the  will 
of  God  could  be  done  in  some  other  way.  But  the  conviction  that 
this  could  not  1)0,  iinincdiateiy  followed.  — AUGUSTUS  Neander:  Life 
of  Jesus  Christ,  i)p.  407-8. 


THAT   OF   A  FINITE  AND  DEPENDENT   BEING.  457 

The  extracts  we  have  made  in  this  section,  as  to  the  profound  piety  of 
Jesus  and  liis  constant  obedience  to  the  divine  will,  seem,  with  but  few 
exCLptions,  to  be  quite  in  unison  with  the  simple  and  interestinjj  narratives 
of  the  New  Testament.  They  represent  tlie  character  of  our  Lord,  not  as 
that  of  a  person  absolutely  perfect,  the  primary  Possessor  and  the  infinite 
Source  of  ail  excellence,  but  as  the  best  of  God's  children,  the  highest  model 
of  human  virtue,  the  rarest,  the  only  type  of  a  future  and  a  godlike  humanity. 
They  speak  of  him  as  drawing  all  his  moral  and  spiritual  life  from  a  greater 
Being  than  himself,  —  from  the  bosom  of  the  supreme  and  universal  Father; 
as  referring  all  his  possessions,  his  instructions,  and  his  works,  not  to  him- 
self, the  original  and  uncontrolled  Proprietor,  Teacher,  and  Agent,  —  an 
infinite  and  eternal  hypostasis  in  a  Triune  Deity,  which  became  united  to  a 
finite  and  mortal  nature,  —  but  to  the  power,  the  wisdom,  and  the  goodness 
of  his  Fatlier  and  his  God.  They  exhibit  him  neither  as  the  blessed  and 
only  Potentate,  nor  as  one  of  three  Almighty  Persons,  who  left  the  throne 
of  his  co-equals  to  dwell  in  a  world,  and  live  with  and  on  behalf  of  men,  the 
products  of  his  own  creative  skill;  and  who,  conscious  of  powers  belonging 
only  to  an  absolute  and  independent  Being,  never  bent  his  knee,  or  pros- 
trated his  soul,  before  any  God  in  heaven  or  on  earth;  but  as  a  man,  wlio, 
bearing  a  relation  to  the  Supreme  and  Paternal  Spirit  higher  and  more  inti- 
mate than  that  vouchsafed  to  anj^  other  holy  personage  or  divine  messenger, 
consecrated  liimself — all  that  he  had  and  said  and  did  —  to  the  service  and 
glory  of  God;  devoting  the  affections  of  his  childhood,  the  growing  strength 
of  his  youth,  the  maturity  of  his  powers,  the  excellence  of  his  gifts,  the 
inspirations  of  his  Heaven-taught  mind,  and  the  throbbings  of  his  human 
heart,  —  all  his  thoughts  and  words  and  works,  his  trials  and  his  sufferings, 
his  life  and  his  death,  —  to  the  worship  and  praise,  not  of  three  co-equal  and 
co-eternal  persons,  of  whom  he  was  the  second,  but  of  the  One  Eternal,  Im- 
mortal, and  Invisible,  the  true  and  the  only  God,  who  sent  him  into  the  world 
to  be  the  Teacher,  the  Exemplar,  and  the  Saviour  of  the  human  race. 

Some  Trinitarians  speak  of  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  as  a  proof  that  he 
was  truly  and  essentially  divine.  We,  on  the  contrary,  regard  it  as  affording 
the  strongest  evidence  for  his  unqutilified  subordination  to  God,  and  are 
confirmed  in  our  opinion  by  the  mode  in  which  it  is  presented  by  the  ortho- 
dox writers  whom  we  have  quoted.  It  seems,  indeed,  amazing  that  any 
one  can  read  with  care  the  records  of  the  evangelists,  or  the  discourses  and 
letters  of  the  apostles,  and  at  the  same  time  believe  that  the  moral  perfec- 
tions of  their  blaster,  which  they  represent  as  transcendent  only  because 
he  was  a  more  faithful  follower  of  God  than  others,  and  was  more  obedient 
and  resigned  to  his  will,  were  the  perfections  of  the  ever-blessed  and  abso- 
lute Being.  The  argument,  as  Dr.  Pond  (in  his  Review  of  Bushnell'8 
"God  in  Christ,"  p.  17)  well  observes,  "  is  obviously  defective.  An  incarnate 
angel  might  be  sinless;  nor  is  there  any  thing  impossible  in  the  supposition 
of  a  perfectly  sinless  man;  "  for  "  man  once  was  sinless,"  and  "  ought  to  be 
tmless  now." 

See  p.  411  for  Dr.  Bluojifield's  note  on  Matt.  xix.  17. 
39 


i58  CHRIST   TUJi   MANIFESTATION    OF   GOD, 


SECT.    VIII.  —  CHRIST    NOT    GOD,    BUT    THE     REPRESENTATIVE,    THB 
MANIFESTATION,   THE   MORAL   IMAGE,   OF   GOD. 

Thou,  Lord,  by  mortal  eyes  unseen, 
And  by  thine  offspring  here  unknown, 
To  manifest  thyself  to  men. 
Hast  set  thine  image  in  thy  Son. 

Mason. 

Whatever  of  the  falsely  or  the  superstitiously  fearful  imaginatifjn 
conjures  up,  because  of  God  beuig  at  a  distance,  can  only  be  dispelled 
by  God  brought  nigh  unto  us.  The  spiritual  must  become  sensible : 
the  veil  which  hides  the  unseen  God  from  the  eye  of  mortals  must 
be  somehow  withdrawn.  Now,  all  this  has  been  done  once,  and  done 
only,  in  the  incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ;  he  being  the  brightness  of 
his  Fathei-'s  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person.  The  God- 
head became  palpable  to  human  senses ;  and  man  could  behold,  as  hi 
a  picture  or  in  distinct  personification,  the  very  chai'acteristics  of  the 
Being  who  made  him.  Then  truly  did  men  hold  converse  with 
Immanuel ;  which  is,  bei!)g  interpreted,  God  with  us.  They  saw  his 
gloiy  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  the  very  characteristics  of  the 
Divinity  himself  may  be  said  to  have  appeared  in  authentic  rejjresen- 
tation  before  them,  when  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  descended  on 
Judea,  and  sojourned  among  its  earthly  tabernacles.  By  this  mys- 
terious movement  from  heaven  to  earth,  the  dark,  the  untrodden 
interval,  which  separates  the  corporeal  from  the  s])iritual,  was  at 
length  overcome.  The  King  eternal  and  invisible  was  tlien  placed 
within  the  ken  of  mortals.  They  saw  the  Son,  and  in  him  saw  the 
Father  also ;  so  that,  while  contemplating  the  person  and  the  history 
of  a  man,  they  could  make  a  study  of  the  Godhead.  ...  In  no  way 
could  a  more  i)alpable  exhibition  have  been  made,  than  .when  the 
eternal  Son,  shrined  in  humanity,  stci)ped  forth  on  the  platform  of 
visible  things,  and  on  the  proclaimed  errand  to  seek  and  to  save  us. 
We  can  now  read  the  character  of  God  in  the  human  looks  and  in 
the  human  language  of  liim  who  is  the  very  image  and  '"i-iible  repre- 
sentation of  the  Deity.  We  see  it  in  the  teai-s  of  sympathy  which  ho 
shed.  We  liear  it  in  the  accents  of  tenderness  which  fell  from  liini. 
Even  his  very  remonstrances  were  those  of  a  meek  and  gentle  nature ; 
for  they  are  remonstrances  of  deepest  pathos,  the  complaints  of  a 
longing  and  affectionate  spirit,  ;igainst  tlie  sad  perversity  of  men  bent 


THE  MORAL  IMAGE  OF  THE  FATHER.  459 

on  their  own  undoing.  "When  visited  with  the  fear  that  God  looks 
hardly  and  adversely  towards  us,  let  us  think  of  him  who  had  com- 
passion on  the  famishing  multitudes ;  of  him  who  mourned  with  the 
sisters  of  Lazarus;  of  him  who,  when  he  approached  the  city  of 
Jerusalem,  wept  over  it  at  the  thought  of  its  coming  desolation. 
And,  knowing  that  the  Son  is  like  unto  the  Father,  let  us  re-assure 
our  hopes  with  the  certainty  that  God  is  love.  —  Dr.  T.  Chalmers  : 
Sehxt  f forks,  vol.  iii.  pp.  161-2. 

If  we  do  Dit  misunderstand  the  import  of  this  extract,  Dr.  Chalmers, 
th  jugh  he  u^vs  some  expressions  which  are  of  an  unscriptural  character, 
means  to  afEnn  that  Jesus  was  the  image  of  the  Father,  and  the  manifesta 
tion  of  God  in  the  flesh,  not  because  he  was  or  represented  God  tlie  Son 
(who,  according  to  tliis  divine,  was  the  Jehovah  who  appeared  visibly  to 
the  patriarchs  and  others),  but  because  he  imaged  forth  the  moral  character 
of  the  Deity,  of  the  Invisible  One,  the  Father,  who  became  visible  in  the 
person,  the  offices,  and  the  life  of  the  Son  of  God,  the  man  Christ  Jesus. 
Such  a  sentiment  is  surely  more  in  unison  with  the  teachings  of  the  New 
Testament  than  with  the  dicta  of  human  creeds  or  the  dogmas  of  a  meta- 
physical orthodoxy. 

Let  us  observe  again,  and  be  thankful  for,  the  perfect  wisdom  of 
God.  Even  while  presenting  to  us  God  in  Christ,  that  is  to  say,  God 
with  all  those  attributes  which  we  can  understand  and  fear  and  love ; 
and  without  those  which  throw  us,  as  it  were,  to  an  infinite  distance, 
overwhelming  our  minds  and  baffling  all  our  conceptions,  —  even 
then  the  utmost  care  is  taken  to  make  us  remember  that  God  in 
himself  is  really  that  infinite  and  incomprehensible  Being  to  whom 
we  cannot,  in  our  present  state,  approach ;  that  even  his  manifestation 
of  himself  in  Christ  Jesus  is  one  less  perfect  than  we  shall  be  permitted 
to  see  hereafter;  that  Christ  stands  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty 
on  high ;  that  he  has  received  from  the  Father  all  his  kingdom  and 
his  glory ;  finally,  that  the  Father  is  greater  than  he,  inasmuch  as  any 
other  nature  added  to  the  pure  and  perfect  essence  of  God  must,  in  a 
e?rtain  measure,  if  I  may  venture  so  to  speak,  be  a  coming  down  to 
a  lower  point  from  the  very  and  unmixed  Di^•inity.  ...  It  was  very 
necessary,  espeeiilly  at  a  time  when  men  were  so  accustomed  to 
worship  their  highest  gods  under  the  form  of  men,  that,  whilst  the 
gospel  was  itself  holding  out  the  man  Christ  Jesus  as  the  object  of 
rehgious  faith  and  fear  and  love,  and  teaching  that  all  power  was 
given  to  him  in  heaven  and  in  eartli,  it  should  also  guard  us  against 
supposing  that  it  meant  to  represent  God  as,  in  himself,  wearing  a 
human  form,  or  having  a  nature  partalving  of  our  infirmities;  and 


400  CnRIST  THE   MANIFESTATION   OF   GOD, 

therefore  it  always  speaks  of  there  being  something  in  God  higher 
and  more  perfect  than  could  possil)ly  be  revealed  to  man;  and  for 
this  eternal  and  infinite  and  inconceivable  Being  it  claims  the  reserve 
of  our  highest  thoughts,  or  rather  it  commands  us  to  believe  that 
they  who  shall  hereafter  see  God  face  to  face  shall  be  allowed  to  sef 
something  still  greater  than  is  now  revealed  to  us,  even  in  Him  who 
is  the  express  image  of  God,  and  the  brightness  of  his  glory.  —  Dr. 
TuoMAS  Arnold:  Sermoiis  on  the  Christian  Life,  pp.  238-40. 

Whutever  opinion  may  be  entertained  of  some  of  the  views  presented  in 
this  extract,  we  think  it  unquestionable  that  the  eternal  and  infinite  Being 
who  was  pleased  to  manifest  himself  to  the  world  in  and  throug;li  Christ, 
and  who  was  the  Source  of  all  the  kingdom,  power,  and  glory,  of  which 
Christ  was  and  is  in  possession,  is  greater  than  the  recipient  of  his  bounty; 
and  that,  however  worthy  his  holy  Son,  Messenger,  Representative,  and 
Image  may  be  of  receiving  our  reverential  regards  and  heartfelt  obedience, 
God  claims  for  himself  our  highest  thoughts  and  profoundest  veneration 
This  is  the  uniform  lesson  of  the  New  Testament,  and  seems  to  be  incul 
cated  here  by  Dr.  Arnold. 

No  doubt,  the  benevolence  of  the  Creator  had  awakened  grateful 
feelings,  and  kindled  the  most  exquisite  poetry  of  expression,  in  the 
hearts  and  from  the  lips  of  many  before  the  coming  of  Christ ;  no 
doubt,  general  humanity  had  been  impressed  upon  mankind  in  the 
most  vivid  and  earnest  language.  But  the  gospel  first  placed  these 
two  great  ijrinciples  as  the  main  pillars  of  the  new  moral  structure : 
God  the  universal  Father,  mankind  one  brotherhood ;  God  made 
known  through  the  mediation  of  his  Son,  the  image  and  humanized 
type  and  exeff.plar  of  his  goodness ;  mankind  of  one  kindred,  and 
therefore  of  equal  rank  in  the  sight  of  the  Creator,  and  to  be  united 
in  one  spiritual  commonwealth.  —  Henry  H.  MlLM.\N  :  History  of 
Christianity,,  vol.  i.  j).  207. 

Here  Christ  is  beautifully  and  scripturally  spoken  of,  not  as  God  the 
Son,  but  as  the  Son  of  (!od,  "  the  image  and  humanized  type  of  God's  good- 
ness;" one  who,  through  his  mediation,  makes  God  known  to  mankind,  not 
as  a  Triune  Being,  but  as  the  universal  Father. 

Almighty  God  has  revealed  himself  as  the  proper  object  of  religion, 
as  the  one  onh'  Power  on  whom  we  are  to  feel  ourselves  continually 
dependei.t  for  all  things,  and  the  one  only  Being  whose  favor  we  are 
continually  to  seek ;  and,  lest  we  should  comjjlain  that  an  infinite 
Being  is  an  olyect  too  remote  and  incompreliensihle  for  our  minds  to 
dwell  upon,  he  has  manifested   himself  ui   his  Son,  the  roan  Jesus 


TUE  MORAL  IMAGE  OF  THE  FATHER.  461 

Christ,  whose  history  and  character  are  largely  described  to  us  in  the 
Gospels ;  so  that  to  love,  fear,  honor,  and  serve  Jesus  Christ,  is  to  love, 
fear,  honor,  and  serve  Almighty  God ;  Jesus  Christ  being  "  one  with 
the  Father,"  and  "  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  "  dwelling  in  him.  — 
Archbishop  Whately:  Cautions  to  the  Times,  p.  71. 

Whatever  sliade  of  meaning  the  Archbishop  of  Dublin  maj'  attach  to  tlie 
scriptural  expressions  with  wliich  this  paragraph  closes,  the  main  sentiment 
he  inculcates  is  unequivocally  Unitarian ;  namely,  that  "  the  only  Being 
whose  favor  we  are  continually  to  seek,"  the  Infinite  and  Incomprehensible 
One, "  manifested  himself  in  his  Son,  the  man  Jesus  Christ."  This  sentiment 
is,  we  think,  in  perfect  unison  with  the  teacliings  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
in  total  opposition  to  the  notion,  eitiier  that  three  infinite  persons  manifested 
themselves,  or  that  the  second  of  these  infinite  persons  manifested  himself 
in  what  is  termed  the  human  nature  of  our  Lord.  * 

We  accept  the  fact  of  the  incarnation,  because  we  feel  that  it  is 
impossible  to  know  the  absolute  and  invisible  God,  as  man  needs  to 

know  him  and  craves  to  know  him,  without  an  incarnation 

You  camiot  believe  the  words  ["  We  beheld  his  glory  as  of  the  only- 
begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth,"  John  i.  14],  however 
habitual  and  familiar  they  may  be  to  you,  if  there  is  that  in  them 
which  contradicts  the  spirit  of  a  man  that  is  in  you ;  which  does  not 
address  that  with  demonstration  and  power.  What  we  say  is,  that 
these  words  have  not  contradicted  that  spirit,  but  have  entered  it 
with  the  demonstration  of  the  spirit  and  of  povi^er.  Men  have  declared, 
"  The  actual  creatures  of  our  race  do  tell  us  of  something  which  must 
belong  to  us,  must  be  most  needful  for  us.  A  gentle  human  being 
does  give  us  the  hint  of  a  higher  gentleness :  a  brave  man  makes  us 
think  of  a  corn-age  far  greater  than  he  can  exhibit.  Friendships, 
sadly  and  continually  interrupted,  suggest  the  belief  of  an  unalterable 
friendship.  Every  brother  awakens  the  hope  of  a  love  stronger  than 
any  affinity  in  nature,  and  disappoints  it.  Every  father  demands  a 
love  and  reverence  and  obedience  which  we  know  is  his  due,  and 
which  something  in  him,  as  well  as  in  us,  hinders  us  from  paying. 
Every  man  who  suffers  and  dies,  rather  than  lie,  bears  witness  of  a 
truth  beyond  his  life  and  death,  of  which  he  has  a  glimpse."  Men 
have  asked,  "  Are  all  these  delusions  ?  Is  this  goodness  we  have 
di'eamed  of,  all  a  dream  ?  —  this  truth  a  fiction  of  ours  ?  Is  thei'e  no 
Brother,  no  Father,  beneath  those  who  have  taught  us  to  believe 
there  must,  be  such  ?  Who  will  tell  us  ?  "  —  What  St.  John  answers 
ia  this :  "  No,  they  are  not  delusions.     It  has  pleased  the  Father  to 

39* 


462  CHRIST  THE  MANIFESTATION   OF  GOD, 

show  US  what  he  is.  A  man  did  dwell  among  us,  —  an  actual  man 
like  ourselves,  —  who  told  us  that  he  had  come  from  this  Father ; 
that  he  knew  him.  And  we  beheved  him :  we  could  not  help  be- 
lieving him.  There  did  shine  forth,  in  his  words,  looks,  acts,  that 
which  we  felt  to"  be  the  gi-ace  and  the  truth  we  were  wanting  to  see. 
We  were  sure  they  were  not  of  this  earth ;  that  they  did  not  spring 
from  that  body  which  was  such  as  ours  is.  We  should  have  been 
ready  enough  to  call  tliem  his.  But  he  did  not :  he  said  they  were 
his  Father's ;  that  he  could  do  nothing  of  himself,  only  what  he  saw 
his  Father  do  [John  v.  19].  That  was  the  most  wonderful  token  to 
us  of  alL  We  never  saw  any  man  before  who  took  nothing  to  him- 
self, who  would  glorify  himself  in  nothing.  Therefore,  when  we 
beheld  him,  we  felt  that  he  was  a  Son,  an  only-begotten  Son ;  and 
that  the  glory  of  One  whom  no  man  had  seen,  or  could  see,  was 
shining  forth  in  him,  and  through  him  upon  us."  —  F.  T).  Maurice  : 
Theological  Essays,  No,  VL  pp.  79,  81-2. 

This  passage  may  not  be  consistent  with  the  other  portions  of  the  Essay 
from  whicli  it  is  taken;  but  we  regard  it  as  containing  a  beautiful  sum- 
mary of  what  John  in  his  Gospel  has  recorded  of  his  divine  Master.  It 
is  not  improbable  tliat  Unitarians  may  have  felt  too  great  a  dislike  to  the 
word  "  incarnation,"  on  account  of  the  gross  ideas  which  it  has  been  so 
often  made  to  express;  but  the  term  is  not  the  less  fitted  to  convey  the 
truly  scriptural  doctrine,  that  the  Absolute,  the  Infinite,  the  Invisible  One, 
tlie  Maker  of  the  universe,  and  the  Parent  of  all  intelligences,  has  exhibited 
liimself  to  mankind  in  a  clearer  and  more  aflfectionate  manner  by  his  well- 
beloved  Son,  than  by  any  other  teacher  or  agent,  whether  animate  or 
inanimate,  physical,  intellectual,  or  moral;  and  that  his  union  with  Jesus, 
the  Nazarean  Man,  was  more  real,  intimate,  transcendent,  than  any  which 
has  ever  subsisted  between  the  same  Father  and  the  best  and  greatest  of  his 
human  children.  But  this  doctrine  is,  we  think,  very  different  from  that 
which  regards  Jesus  as  a  second  hypostasis  in  the  Godhead,  or  as  God  him- 
self, assuming  human  flesh,  in  order  either  to  manifest  his  own  divine  nature, 
or  to  exliil>it  the  character  and  will  of  a  Triune  Being;  or  as  a  single  person 
uniting  in  himself  the  contradictory  properties  of  Divinity  and  Humanity. 

He  [God]  brings  out  the  purity  and  spotlessness  and  moral  glory 
of  the  Divinity,  through  the  workings  of  a  human  mind  called  into 
existence  for  this  jmrpose,  and  stationed  in  a  most  conspicuous  attitude 
among  men.  .  .  .  The  moral  ]:)erfections  of  Divinity  show  themselves 
to  us  in  the  only  way  by  which,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  it  is  possible 
directly  to  sliow  tiiem,  by  coming  out  in  action,  in  tiie  very  field  of 
human  duty,  by  a  mysterious  union  with  a  hunum  intellect  and  human 
powers.     It  is  God  nmnifest  in  the  flesh;    the  visible  moral  image 


THE  MORAL  IMAGE  OF  THE  FATHER.  4G3 

of  an  all-pervading  moral  Deity,  Himself  for  ever  invisible 

God  manifests  himself  in  the  blazing  sun,  the  fiery  comet,  and  in  the 
verdure  and  bloom  of  the  boundless  regions  of  the  earth ;  but  these 
are  not  tlie  avenues  through  which  a  soid  burdened  with  its  sins  would 
desu-e  to  approach  its  Maker,  The  gospel  solves  the  difficulty.  "  It 
is  by  Jesus  Christ  that  we  have  access  to  the  Father."  This  \i\-id 
exhibition  of  his  character,  this  personification  of  his  moral  attributes, 
opens  to  us  the  way.  Here  we  see  a  manifestation  of  Divinity,  an 
image  of  the  invisible  God,  which  comes  as  it  were  down  to  us :  it 
meets  our  feeble  faculties  with  a  personification  exactly  adapted  to 
their  wants ;  so  that  the  soid  —  when  pressed  by  the  trials  and  diffi- 
culties of  its  condition,  when  overwhelmed  with  sorrow,  or  bowed 
down  by  remorse,  or  earnestly  longin*  for  holiness  —  will  pass  by  all 
the  other  outward  exhibitions  of  the  Deity,  and  approach  the  invisible 
Supreme  through  that  manifestation  of  himself  which  he  has  made 
in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  his  Son,  our  Saviour.  —  Jacob  Abbott  : 
The  Corner-stone,  pp.  25-6,  48. 

Here,  again,  Christ  is  spoken  of,  not  as  manifesting  any  essential!}'  divine 
nature  and  attributes  of  liis  own,  but  rather  the  moral  glory  and  perfections 
of  the  Deity;  of  tlie  invisible  Supreme;  of  that  paternal  Being  to  whom  he 
Etood  in  the  relation  of  only-begotten  or  best-beloved  Son. 

The  reality  of  Christ  is  what  he  expresses  of  God,  not  what  he  is 
in  his  physical  conditions,  or  under  his  human  limitations.  He  is  here 
to  express  the  absolute  Being,  especially  His  feeUng,  His  love  to  man, 
His  placableness,  conversableness,  and  His  real  union  to  the  race ;  in 
a  word,  to  communicate  his  own  life  to  the  race,  and  graft  Himself 
historically  into  it.  Therefore,  when  we  see  him  thus  under  the  con- 
ditions of  increase,  obedience,  worsliip,  suffering,  we  have  nothing  to  do 
but  to  ask  what  is  here  expressed ;  and,  as  long  as  we  do  that,  we  shall 
have  no  difficulty.  —  Horace  Busiixell  :   God  in  Christ,  p.  156. 

This  passage  occurs  as  an  explanation  of  Dr.  Bushnicll's  view  of  the 
person  of  Christ,  in  opposition  to  the  common  one  that  Christ  had  a  luunan 
soul  distinct  from  a  divine  nature.  We  introduce  it  here  merely  to  illustrate 
our  position,  that  Jesus  Christ  was  not  tiie  Being  whom  he  represented,  any 
more  than  the  external  world  is  the  Creator  whose  goodness  and  glory  it 
manifests. 


All  the  texts  of  Scripture  which  speak  of  the  indwelling  of  God  in  Christ, 
of  Christ's  union  with  God,  of  his  acting  as  the  representative,  or  his  being 
the  image,  of  God,  will  be  ex|)lained  more  fully  in  their  resp<ictive  places 
in  the  sequel  of  the  present  work. 


464  AS  UEAD   AND  RULER  OF  THE  CUDRCH, 


8ECT.  IX.  —  AS  UFJlD  OF  THE  CHURCU,  AND  AS  JUDGE   OF   MANKIND, 
CHRIST   DERIVED   HIS   POWER  AND   GLORY   FROM   GOD. 

To  Jesus'  new  commands 
Be  strict  obedience  paid  : 
O'er  all  his  Father's  house  he  stands 
The  Sovereign  aud  the  Head. 

Isaac  Watm. 

There  was  some  kind  of  lordship  given  or  bestowed  on  Clirist, 
whose  very  unction  proves  no  less  than  an  imparted  dominion ;  as  St. 
Peter  tells  us  that  he  was  "  made  both  Lord  and  Christ,"  Acts  ii.  36. 
What  Da\id  spake  of  man,  the  apostle  hath  ajjplied  jieculiarly  unto 
him  :  "  Tliou  crownedst  him  with  glory  and  honor,  and  didst  set  him 
over  the  works  of  thy  hands;  tliou  hast  put  all  things  in  subjection 
under  his  feet,"  1  leb.  ii.  7,  8.  Now,  a  dominion  tluis  imparted,  given, 
derived,  or  l)estowed,  caimot  be  that  wliich  belongcth  unto  God  as 
God,  founded  in  the  divine  nature,  because  whatsoever  is  such  is 
absolute  and  independent.  Wherefore,  this  lordship  thus  imparted 
or  acquired  appertaineth  to  tlie  human  nature,  and  belongeth  to  our 
Saviour  as  live  Son  of  man.  The  right  of  judicature  is  part  of  this 
power;  and  Christ  himself  hath  told  us  that  the  Father  "hath  given 
him  authority  to  execute  judgment,  because  he  is  tiie  Son  of  man  " 
(John  V.  27) ;  and,  by  virtue  of  this  delegated  authority,  the  "  Son 
of  man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with  his  angels,  and 
reward  every  man  according  to  his  works,"  Matt.  xvi.  27.  Part  of 
the  same  dominion  is  the  jjower  of  forgiving  sins ;  as  pardoning,  no 
less  than  punishing,  is  a  branch  of  the  supreme  magistracy ;  and 
Christ  did  tiiercfore  say  to  tlie  sick  of  the  palsy,  "Thy  sins  be  forgiven 
thee,  that  wc  might  know  that  the  Son  of  man  had  power  on  eartli 
to  forgive  sins,"  Matt.  ix.  2,  6.  Anotlier  branch  of  tliat  power  is  the 
alteration  of  the  law,  there  being  the  same  authority  required  te 
abrogate  or  alter,  which  is  to  make  a  law ;  and  Christ  asserted  himself 
to  be  "  greater  tlian  the  tcmjile,"  showing  tliat  the  "  Son  of  man  was 
Lord  even  of  the  sabbath-day,"  Matt.  xii.  G,  8.  This  dominion  tlius 
given  unto  Christ  in  iiis  human  nature  was  a  direct  and  ]ilcnary  power 
over  all  things,  but  was  not  actually  given  him  at  once,  but  part  while 
he  lived  on  earth,  part  after  his  death  and  resurrection.  For  though 
it  be  true  that  "  Jesus  knew,"  before  his  deatli,  "  that  tlie  Father  had 


CHRIST  DERIVED  HIS  POWER  AND  GLORY  FROM  GOD.  465 

given  all  things  itto  his  hands  "  (John  xiii.  3),  yet  it  is  observable 
that  in  the  same  place  it  is  written,  that  he  likewise  knew  "  that  he 
was  come  from  God,  and  went  to  God ; "  and  part  of  that  power 
he  received  when  he  came  from  God,  with  part  he  was  invested 
when  he  went  to  God,  —  the  first  to  enable  him  ;  the  second,  not  only 
so,  but  also  to  reward  him.  "  For  to  this  end  Christ  both  died,  rose, 
and  revived,  that  he  might  be  Lord  both  of  the  dead  and  hving," 
Rom.  xiv.  9.  After  his  resurrection,  he  said  to  his  discijiles,  "All 
])ower  is  gi-en  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth,"  Matt,  xxviii.  18. 
♦*  He  drank  of  the  brook  in  the  Avay ;  therefore  he  hath  Uft  up  his 
head, '  Ps.  ex.  7.  Because  "  he  humbled  himself,  and  became  obe- 
dient unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross,  therefore  God  hath 
also  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every 
name ;  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in 
heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth ;  and  that 
every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of 
God  the  Father,"  Phil.  ii.  8-1 1.  Thus  for  and  after  his  death  he  was 
instated  in  a  full  power  and  dominion  over  all  things,  even  as  the  Son 
of  man ;  but  exalted  by  the  Fathei",  who  "  raised  him  from  the  dead, 
and  set  him  at  his  right  hand  in  the  heavenly  places,  far  above  all 
principality  and  power  and  might  and  dominion,  and  every  name  that 
is  named,  not  only  in  this  world,  but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come ; 
and  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet,  and  gave  him  to  be  head 
over  all  things  to  the  church,"  Eph.  i.  20-22.  —  BiSHOP  Pearson  : 
Exposition  of  the  Creed,  Art.  II.  pp.  216-17. 

God  hath  committed  the  administration  of  this  judgment  to  Christ, 
that  he  might  hereby  declare  the  righteousness  and  equity  of  it, 
in  that  mankind  is  judged  by  one  in  their  own  nature,  a  man  like 
themselves ;  and  therefore  we  find  that  the  Scripture,  when  it  speaks 
of  Christ  as  Judge  of  the  world,  doth  almost  constantly  call  him 
"man"  and  "the  Son  of  man,"  Matt.  xiii.  41;  xvi.  27;  xxiv.  30; 
XXV.  31.  Acts  xvii.  31.  By  the  constant  use  of  which  expression,  the 
Scripture  doth  give  us  plainly  to  understand  that  this  great  honor  of 
being  Judge  of  the  world  was  conferred  upon  the  human  nature 
of  Christ ;  for,  as  he  is  God,  he  could  not  derive  this  power  from  any, 
it  being  originally  mherent  in  the  Deity.  Which  Hkewise  appears  in 
those  expressions  of  his  being  ordained  a  Judge,  and  having  all 
authority  and  judgment  committed  and  given  to  him.  Acts  xvii.  31; 
John  V.  22.  27.  —  Abridged  from  Archbishop  Tillotson  :  Sennon 
179 ;  in  Works,  voj.  ix.  pp.  326-6. 


4'56  AS   HEAD   AND   IIULER   OF   THE   CUUKCU, 

In  this  j)lace  [Matt,  xxviii.  18-20],  you  hear  our  Saviour  declaring 
all  power  and  authority  to  be  given  him  at  his  resurrection ;  in  con- 
sequence of  which  power,  he  commissions  his  disciples  to  convert, 
baptize,  and  instruct  the  world. .  . .  You  see,  likewise,  that  the  powers 
delegated  to  thfe  ministers  of  the  church  derive  themselves  from  this 
power  so  received ;  and,  consequently,  all  acts  done  by  them  in  the 
name  of  Christ  are  founded  in  the  power  which  he  received  at  his 
resurrection.  .  .  .  The  power  over  all  things,  the  dominion  both  of  tl\e 
dead  and  the  living  [Kom.  xiv.  9],  commenced  at  the  resurrecti  ;n, 
which  was  indeed  the  very  first  step  to  glory  and  honor  which  our 
blessed  Saviour  took  after  his  state  of  humiliation  and  sufferings.  .  .  , 
What  can  be  added  to  this  description  of  power  and  authority? 
[Eph,  i.  17-23.]  And  yet  the  apostle  founds  all  this  upon  his  resur^ 
rection,  and  his  exaltation  consequent  to  it.  Then  were  all  things 
put  under  his  feet;  then  was  he  given  to  be  Head  over  the  church, 
and  set  above  all  principality  and  power  and  might  and  dominion,  and 
every  name  that  is  named.  The  Scripture  abounds  in  evidence  of 
this  kind.  And  I  think  there  is  nothing  plainer  in  the  Gospel  than 
that  Christ  Jesus  is  our  Lord,  because  he  hath  redeemed  us ;  that  he 
is  our  King,  being  raised  by  the  Father  to  all  power  and  authority ; 
that  he  is  our  Mediator  and  Intercessor,  being  set  down  on  the  right 
hand  of  God  in  the  heavenly  places.  All  honor  and  worshij)  paid  to 
Christ,  in  and  by  the  church  of  God,  are  founded  in  this  exaltation.  — 
Bishop  Sherlock  :  Discourses,  vol.  iv.  pp.  58-9,  62. 

Even  in  his  human  nature,  he  [Christ]  was  raised  by  God  to  a 
very  illustrious  dignity,  John  xvii.  5 ;  Acts  ii.  33-36 ;  Eph.  i.  20,  seq. ; 
Col.  i.  17  ;  Phil.  ii.  9,  10.  He  is  entitled  to  honor  from  every  being, 
even  from  the  higher  intelligences,  lleb.  i.  6;  Phil.  ii.  9,  10;  since 
he  is  henceforth  raised  in  glory  and  majesty  above  all,  1  Pet.  in.  22. 
Hence  a  kingdom  is  ascribed  to  him,  over  which  he  reigns  in  heaven. 
He  is  called  King,  and  di\inely  appointed  Lord,  Acts  ii.  36;  and 
Ki'p.o^  (56i"7/f,  especially  by  Paul,  1  Cor.  ii.  8,  i.e.  the  gk)rious,  adoral)le 
liOrd.  In  lleb.  i.  9,  Paul  api)lies  to  Christ  the  passage,  Ps.  xlv.  7, 
"  God  hatii  anointed  thee  with  tlie  oil  of  joy  above  tliy  fellows ;  "  i.  e., 
God  honors  thee  more,  and  gives  thee  more  privileges,  than  all  the 
partners  of  thy  dignity,  —  the  other  kings,  or  sons  of  God.  .  .  .  The 
government  of  Christ  is  descril)ed  by  himself  and  his  apostles  as  being, 
not  external  and  temjjoral,  but  spiritual,  conducted  principally  by 
means  of  his  religion,  by  the  preaching  of  tlie  gospel,  and  the  power 
which  attends  it.     Tiiis  government,  which  Jesus  admuiisters  as  a 


CBUIIST  DEIllVED  IIIS  POWER  AND  GLOUY  FROM  GOD.  467 

man,  is  not  natural  to  him,  or  one  which  he  attains  by  birth,  but 
acquired.  He  received  it  from  his  Father  as  a  reward  for  his  suffer- 
ings, and  for  his  faithful  performance  of  the  whole  worlc  and  discharge 
of  all  the  offices  intrusted  to  him  by  God  for  the  good  of  men,  Phil, 
ii.  9 ;  Heb.  ii.  9,  10.  Christ  learned  by  his  sufferings  to  obey  God, 
and  do  his  will ;  and  he  who  knows  how  to  obey  so  well  is  also  qua- 
lified to  govern  well The  phrase  ["  sitting  at  the  right  hand 

of  God  ']  is  never  applied  to  Christ,  except  Avhen  his  humanity  is 
spoken  of,  or  when  he  is  mentioned  as  Messiah,  ■deavOpwKoq.  The 
language,  "  Christ  left  his  seat  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  in 
order  to  become  man,"  was  first  used  by  the  fathers  who  lived  after 
the  fourth  century.  Such  language  never  occurs  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. "  Sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God  "  is  always  there  represented 
as  the  reward  which  the  Messiah  obtained  from  God,  after  his  death 
and  ascension,  for  the  faithful  accomphshment,  when  upon  earth,  of 
all  his  work  for  the  salvation  of  man.  It  is  the  promised  reward 
which  the  victor  receives  after  a  long  contest :  viae  Acts  ii.  3 1-36 ; 
Heb.  xii.  2.  Hence  the  Father  is  said  to  have  placed  Jesus  at  his 
right  hand,  Eph.  i.  20.  This  phrase,  therefore,  beyond  doubt,  implies 
every  thing  which  belongs  to  the  glory  of  Chi'ist  considered  as  a  man, 
and  to  the  dominion  over  the  entire  universe,  over  the  human  race,  and 
especially  over  the  church  and  its  members,  which  belongs  to  him  as 

a  king.    This  is  the  reward  which  he  receives  from  the  Father 

The  holding  of  the  general  judgment,  as  well  as  the  raising  of  the 
dead,  is  commonly  ascribed  in  the  New  Testament  to  Christ,  and 
rei)resented  as  a  commission  or  plenipotentiary  power,  which  the 
Father  had  given  to  the  man  Jesus  as  Messiah,  Rom.  ii.  16 ;  John  v. 
22,  25;  Matt.  x^^.  27;  Acts  x.  42,  xvii.  31.  Christ  himself  assigns 
it  as  the  reason  why  God  had  intrusted  to  him  the  holding  of  this 
judgment,  that  he  is  a  man,  John  v.  27,  coll.  Acts  xvii.  31.  God 
has  constituted  him  the  Judge  of  men,  because  he  is  man,  and  knows 
from  his  own  experience  all  the  suiferings  and  infirmities  to  which  cur 
nature  is  exjiosed,  and  can  therefore  be  compassionate  and  indulgent, 
Heb.  ii.  14-17,  coll.  1  Tim.  ii.  5.  —  Abridged  from  Geo.  C.  Ivnapp  : 
Christian  T/ieology,  sect,  xcviii. ;  sect.  xcix.  H. ;  sect.  civ.  I. 

Of  what  nature  is  the  KvpLOT-qg  so  often  ascribed  to  the  Saviour  by 
Paul,  and  the  olher  writers  of  the  New  Testament  ?  Is  it  original  or 
conferrel  ?  Does  Christ  as  Messiah,  and,  in  this  capacity,  as  Lord  of 
the  church  and  of  all  things,  possess  original  or  delegated  dominion  ? 
"(Jod  manifest  in  the  flesh."  the  eternal  Logos  who  "was  with  God, 


4G8  CHRIST   A3   HEAD  OF   TUE   CHURCH. 

and  was  God,"  —  in  a  word,  God-man,  —  this  complex  person  might 
have  a  Kvpiorr/g  that  was  delegated  or  conferred.  Was  this  in  fact  so  ? 
Has  Paul  and  his  coadjutors  taught  us  such  doctrine  .-^  These  ques 
tions  I  feel  myself  obliged  to  answer  in  the  affirmative.  The  apostle, 
in  Phil.  ii.  5-11,  states  it  as  a  ground  of  Christ's  exaltation  to  be  Lord 
of  all,  that  "  he  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the 
cross ; "  for,  when  he  had  made  mention  of  this  obedience,  he  imme- 
diately adds,  "  wherefore,"  i.e.,  because  he  was  thus  obedient,  he  was 
exalted  to  a  throne  of  glory.  Consequently,  the  dominion  in  question 
was  the  reward  of  obedience ;  i.e.,  it  was  conferred,  bestowed,  and  not 
original.  In  exact  accordance  with  this  is  the  passage  in  Heb.  ii.  10, 
which  represents  Christ  as  perfected  in  glory,  advanced  to  the  highest 
honor  and  happiness,  as  a  consequence  of  his  sufferings.  Of  the  same 
tenor  also  are  all  those  passages  which  sj)eak  of  Jesus  as  exalted  to 
the  right  hand  of  God,  after  his  resurrection.  So  testifies  also  the 
beloved  disciple :  "  Even  as  I  (Christ)  overcame,  and  am  set  down 
with  my  Father  on  his  throne,"  llev.  iii.  21 ;  i.e.,  his  KvpiorrjQ,  or  being 
enthroned,  was  the  consequence  of  liis  overcoming;  viz.,  overcoming  the 
temptations  and  trials  of  life,  overcoming  his  spiritual  enemies,  and 
persevering  even  to  the  end  in  a  course  of  entire  duty  and  holiness. 
Again,  John  xiii.  3 ;  xvii.  2 ;  iii.  35 ;  v.  26,  27 ;  v.  22.  With  this 
testimony  agree  the  declarations  of  Jesus  as  recorded  by  another 
disciple :  "  All  things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father,"  Matt. 
xi.  27.  "  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth," 
Matt,  xxviii.  18.  These  are  only  a  few  of  the  many  texts  wliich 
speak  ])lainly  on  the  subject  of  the  Messiah's  conferred  dominion.  It 
is  impossible  to  set  them  aside.  ^Vhatever  dominion  he  possessed  as 
Messiah,  as  God-man,  as  Mediator,  as  Head  of  the  church  militant, 
it  is  one  wMch  is  bestowed.  —  Abridged  from  Moses  Stuart,  in 
Biblical  Rej  tsitori)  for  October,  1831,  pp.  749-51. 


vVitli  the  aid  of  Trinitarian  divines,  we  sliowed,  in  precedin,!»  pages,  that 
Jesus  Christ,  whether  regarded  as  a  suiicrhuinan  being,  who  existed  before 
his  residence  in  (he  world,  or  as  the  Messiah  with  all  the  functions  and 
qualifications  requisite  for  liis  acting  on  earth  in  this  character,  received  his 
existence,  his  possessions,  and  his  powers,  from  his  heavenly  Father.  In 
the  present  section,  we  have  proved,  with  the  same  lielp,  tiiat  our  Lord,  in 
that  state  of  exaltation  to  which  he  was  raised  after  the  completion  of  his 
earthly  course,  was  and  is  indebted  to  the  same  great  Hoing  for  his  regal 
power  and  dominion,  —  for  his  authority  as  the  Head  and  Sovereign  of  tb* 
universal  church. 


CHRIST   THE  OBJECT   OF   CIVIL   WORSHIP  469 


SECT.  X.  —  CHRIST  NOT  TO  BE  WORSHIPPED  WITH  SUPREME  VENE- 
RATION, BUT  WITH  THE  HONOR  DUE  TO  ONE  WHO  FAITHFULLY 
PERFORMED  THE  WILL  OF  GOD,  AND  DIED  FOR  THE  SALVATION 
OF  MEN. 

To  Him  who  sits  upon  the  throne, 

The  God  whom  we  adore, 
And  to  the  Lamb  that  once  was  slain. 

Be  glory  evermore. 

Scotch  Paraphrase. 

4  1.   Civil,  not  Divine,  Homage  paid  to  Jesus  while  on  Eakth. 

Should  any  one  peruse  the  evangelical  narratives  with  the  requisite 
attention,  he  would  hardly  affirm  that  the  persons  who  worshipped 
Christ  while  on  earth  acknowledged  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God  [in 
the  Trinitarian  sense,  we  suppose,  is  intended].  They  believed,  indeed, 
that  he  was  a  distinguished  proj)het,  sent  by  the  Almighty,  by  whose 
assistance  he  cured  the  blind,  the  deaf,  and  the  lame ;  but  they 
did  not  recognize  him  as  the  true  Son  of  God.  This  is  proved  by 
the  opinion  of  Nicodemus,  John  iii.  2  ;  the  confession  of  Peter  and  the 
other  disciples.  Matt.  x\i.  13,  14;  and  the  exclamation  of  the  inha- 
bitants of  Nain,  Luke  vii.  16.  Accordingly,  the  magi,  the  leper,  the 
centurion,  and  others,  though  as  yet  they  did  not  acknowledge  Christ 
to  be  the  Son  of  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  felt  persuaded  that  the 
power  of  the  Most  High  was  exhibited  in  him  ;  and  therefore  the  wise 
men  honored  him  as  their  King,  and  others  sought  aid  and  health 
from  him  as  from  a  mighty  Prophet  of  God.  —  Abraham  Scultet  : 
Exercitationes,  lib.  i.  cap.  o9. 

I  do  not,  in  proof  of  this  [that  Christ  is  the  oljject  of  di\ine  wor- 
ship], urge  the  instances  of  those  who  fell  down  at  Christ's  feet  and 
worshipped  him  while  he  was  on  earth ;  for  it  may  be  well  answered 
t )  that,  that  a  prophet  was  worshipped  with  the  civil  respect  of  falling 
down  before  him,  among  the  Jews,  as  appears  in  the  history  of  I'ilijah 
and  Kisha.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  those  who  worshipped  C'hi-ist 
had  any  apprehension  of  his  being  God :  they  only  considered  hira 
as  the  Messias,  or  as  some  eminent  prophet.  —  Bishop  Burnet: 
Kxposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Jlrticks,  Art.  I. 

The  bishop,  however,  excepts  from  such  instances  those  in  which  th« 
discii)les  are  said  to  have  worshipped  Christ  at  his  ascension. 

40 


^70  CHRIST  NOT  TO   BE   WORSHIPPED 

Doing  reverence  by  prostration  is  not  only  an  act  of  worship  paid 
to  God,  but  often  to  kings  and  great  men  in  the  Old  Testament,  ac- 
cording to  the  custom  of  Eastern  countries :  see  2.  Sam.  ix.  6  ;  xiv.  33. 
It  was  likewise  an  expression  of  reverence  paid  to  prophets,  on  the 
account  of  the  sanctity  of  their  office,  and  not  refused  by  them :  see 
1  Kings  xviii.  7.  Of  this  kind  probal)ly  was  the  worship  paid  by 
the  leper  to  Christ  (Matt.  viii.  2),  Avhom  he  took  for  a  prophet.  — 
William  Lowth  on  Dan.  ii.  46. 

Those  who  render,  "  they  adored  liim,"  suppose  that  the  magi 
were  acquainted  with  the  mystery  of  the  Saviour's  Incarnation  and 
Divinity,  which  the  apostles  obtained  only  after  his  resurrection.  I  do 
not  say  this  in  order  to  favor  a  Christian  sect  that  has  false  opinions 
on  the  person  of  the  Saviour.  It  is  certain  that  the  Jews  paid  the 
homage  of  prostration  to  jjersons  of  dignity  whom  they  respected.  — 
Isaac  ve  Beausobre  on  Matt,  ii.  11:  liemarques,  tom.  i.  p.  10. 

"  To  do  him  homage,"  ■npoaawTjaai  avTu.  The  homage  of  prostra- 
tion, which  is  signified  by  tliis  Greek  word  in  sacred  authors  as  well 
as  in  profane,  was,  throughout  all  Asia,  commonly  paid  to  kings  and 
other  suj^eriors,  both  by  Jews  and  by  Pagans.  It  was  paid  by  Moses 
to  his  father-in-law  (Exod.  xviii.  7),  called  in  the  English  translation 
"  obeisance."  The  instances  of  this  application  are  so  numerous,  both 
in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  .New,  as  to  render  more  quotations 
unnecessary.  When  God  is  the  object,  the  word  denotes  adoration 
in  the  highest  sense.  In  old  English,  the  terra  "worship"  was 
indlH'eiontly  used  of  both.  It  is  not  commonly  so  now.  —  Dr. 
George  Campbell  on  Matt.  ii.  2. 

Ylpoaiivvdv,  in  the  New  Testament,  particulai'ly  denotes,  "  with  the 
head  and  body  bent,  to  show  reverence  and  offer  civil  worship  to  any 
one ;  to  salute  any  one,  so  as  to  prostrate  the  body  to  the  ground,  and 
touch  it  even  with  the  chin ; "  a  mode  of  salutation  which  was  almost 
universally  adojjted  l)y  Eastern  nations.  U.poaKwuv  also  signifies  "  to 
bend  the  knee  in  reverence  and  honor,  or  in  supplication ; "  corre- 
K])onding,  in  this  sense,  to  the  Hebrew  word,  HiriFiffin,  "  he  bent "  or 
"  prostrated  himself  at  the  feet  of  any  one  for  the  sake  of  honor  and 
reverence ; "  for  which  it  is  used  in  the  Septuagint,  Gen.  xviii.  2 ; 
xxiii.  7,  12;  xix.  i.  Esth.  iii.  2,  5,  &c.  ...  See  Matt.  ii.  2,  8,  11; 
Tiii.  2;  ix.  18,  comp.  Mark  v.  22  and  Luke  v.  12.  Matt.  xv.  25; 
xviii.  26;  xx.  20;  xxviii.  9,  17.  Murk  v.  6;  xv.  19.  John  ix.  38. 
Acts  x.  25.  —  J.  F.  ScilLEUSNER :  Lexicon  in  jVovum  Testa iiientum, 
art.  llpoaKvvicj,  3. 


WITH   SUPREME  ADQRATION.  471 

\  2.   Secondary,  not  Supreme,  Homage  paid,  or  required   to   bx 
PAID,  TO  Christ,  after  his  Exaltation  to  Heaven. 

The  former  kind  of  worship  [to  Jesus  as  God]  is  not  different 
from  that  which  is  exhibited  to  God  the  Fatlier :  the  latter  worship 
is  not  absolutely  supreme,  and  is  suitable  to  Christ  as  Mediator,  but 
subordinate  to  that  of  the  Father,  by  whom  it  has  been  graciously 
communicated  to  Christ,  and  is  expressly  commanded  in  Scripture  to 
be  paid  to  him.  It  therefore  follows,  that  this  worship  does  not 
terminate  in  Christ  himself,  but  tends  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father, 
to  whom  it  is  either  expressly  or  tacitly  refen-ed ;  just  as  the  honor 
which  is  manifested  towards  a  legate  does  not  terminate  in  him,  but 
.ends  to  the  glory  of  the  king  by  whom  he  is  sent.  Thus,  Phil.  ii.  11: 
"That  every  tongue  should  confess  the  Lord  Jesus,  to  the  glory  of 
God  the  Father."  The  Lord  Jesus  is  to  be  worshipped,  because  in 
his  name  every  knee  must  bow,  and  every  tongue  confess  him  to  be 
Lord ;  and  because  the  basis  of  this  worship  is  his  exaltation  by  the 
Father,  for  having  suffered  the  death  of  the  cross.  But  surely  these 
circumstances  are  suitable  to  him,  not  as  God,  but  as  man,  and 
directly  refer  to  his  office  of  Mediator.  The  whole  of  this  adoration 
is  subordinate  to  that  of  the  Father,  and  terminates  in  him ;  which  is 
proved  from  the  concluding  words,  "  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father." 
To  this  passage,  and  John  v.  22,  23,  may  be  added  Heb.  i.  6  from  Ps. 
xcvii.  7.  —  Philip  Limborch  :  Theol.  Christ.,  lib.  v.  cap.  18,  §  2,  5. 

This  unparalleled  act  of  obedience  God  hath  rewarded,  by  advan- 
cing his  human  nature  to  universal  dominion,  that  the  man  Christ 
Jesus  should  now  rule  over,  and  be  adored  by,  all  creatures ;  that  all 
nations  should  acknowledge  this  king,  and,  by  submitting  to  his  laws 
and  government,  promote  the  glory  oi  God  the  Father,  who  delights 
to  be  honoi'ed  in  the  belief  and  obedience  paid  to  his  blessed  Son  and 
his  gospel.  —  Dr.  George  Stanhope  on  Phil.  ii.  9-11 :  Comment  on 
the  Epistles  and  Gospels,  vol.  ii.  p.  433. 

As  the  fundamental  reason  for  which  God  the  Father  receiveth 
worship  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  is  because  he  hath  created  all 
things,  and  preserves  them  by  his  will,  to  ha\e  it  perfected  and 
executed  on  them  ;  so  the  fundamental  reason  for  which  the  Son  is 
worshipped  is  because  he  was  slain,  and  shed  his  blood  to  redeem 
thereby  all  mankind.  —  Charles  ])aubuz  on  Kcv.  v.  9. 

Tliis  writer  sif'terwanis  endeavors  to  expluiu  this  Unitarian  remaik  io 
conformity  with  Triuitariaiiism. 


472  CHRIST   NOT   TO   BE   WORSHIPPED 

In  the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  we  have  several  hymns  recorded, 
which  the  church  of  the  first-born  sing  to  God  and  to  his  Christ;  and 
we  :annot  form  our  devotions  from  a  better  copy  than  that  which 
the)'  have  set  us.  In  the  fourth  chapter  [eleventh  verse],  the  four 
and  ,wenty  elders  fall  down  before  Him  that  sat  on  the  throne,  and 
worsliip  Him  that  liveth  for  ever  and  ever,  and  cast  their  cro\nis 
before  the  throne,  saying,  "  Thou  art  worthy,  O  Lord !  to  receive 
glory  and  honor  and  power ;  for  thou  hast  created  all  things,  and  for 
thy  ])leasure  they  are  and  were  created."  Here  you  see  plainly  that 
the  adoration  paid  to  God  the  Father  is  founded  upon  his  being  the 
Creator  of  all  things.  Look  a  little  tarther  into  the  next  chapter 
[chap.  v.  9,  10],  and  you  will  find  the  same  persons  praising  and 
adoring  Christ  Jesus,  saying,  "  Thou  art  worthy  to  take  the  book, 
and  to  open  the  seals  thereof;  for  thou  wast  slain,  and  hast  redeemed 
us  to  God  by  thy  blood  out  of  every  kindred  and  tongue  and  people 
and  nation,  and  hast  made  us  unto  our  God  kings  and  priests ;  and 
we  shall  reign  on  the  earth."  Here  you  as  plainly  see  the  worship 
paid  to  Christ  to  be  founded  in  this,  that  he  was  slain,  and  did  by 
his  blood  redeem  us ;  nay,  the  very  choir  of  angels  sing  praises  to  him 
in  the  same  strain  [ver.  12],  saying,  "Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was 
slain  to  receive  power  and  riches  and  wisdom  and  strength  and  honor 
and  glory  and  blessing."  From  all  which  it  is  evident,  that  the 
worship  jjaid  to  Christ  is  founded  upon  the  redemj)tion,  and  relates 
to  that  ])ower  and  authority  which  he  received  from  God  at  his  resui"- 

rection Here  [Rom.  x.  8,  U]  you  see  St.  Paul  requires  all  men 

to  honor  the  Lord  Jesus  upon  this  account,  because  "  God  hath  raised 
him  from  the  dead."  Every  man  must  "  honor  the  Son,  even  as  he 
honoreth  the  Father"  [John  v.  23].  This  honor  paid  to  the  Son 
must  proceed  from  this  ])rincij)le  of  faith,  that  in  your  heart  you 
believe  that  G(k1  raised  him  from  the  dead,  and  made  him  Lord  of 
all.  ...  If  he  be  risen  from  the  dead,  if  he  now  reigns  in  ])ower  at  the 
riglit  liand  of  tlie  Alniiglity,  if  he  received  this  power,  and  if  he  uses 
it  in  order  to  our  salvation,  can  any  thing  be  more  absurd  than  to 
deny  him  those  honors  which  are  due  to  him  in  consequence  of  his 
glory,  and  necessarjly  flow  from  the  relation  we  stand  in  towards 
him  ?  The  danger  which  some  apprehend,  in  l)aying  this  duty  to 
their  Redeemer,  of  robl)ing  God  of  liis  ])eculiar  honor,  and  setting  up 
a  new  and  distinct  object  of  worship,  in  ojjposition  to  those  plain 
commands  which  confine  our  religious  service  to  God  alone,  will 
vanish  away,  if  we  consider  that  all  powers  exercised  by  Christ,  all 


WITH  SUPREME  ADORATION.  473 

honors  paid  to  li.m,  are  ultimately  refen-ed  to  God,  the  Fatiier  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  honor  and  worship  paid  to  the  Son  must 
either  be  part  of  the  service  we  owe  to  God,  or  it  must  be  inconsistent 
with  it.  If  we  have  found  out  a  new  object  of  adoration  for  ourselves, 
we  are  offenders  against  the  law,  which  says,  "  Thou  shalt  worship 
the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve ; "  but  if  we  honor 
Christ  in  consequence  of  the  power  and  glory  conferred  on  him  by 
God,  and  in  virtue  of  a  command  received  from  God  to  honor  the 
Son  even  as  we  honor  the  Father,  then  the  honor  we  pay  to  Christ  is 
part  of  the  service  we  owe  to  God,  and  arises  even  out  of  that  .com' 
mand,  "  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt 
thou  serve."  .  .  .  Hence  it  is  manifest  that  the  honor  paid  to  Christ  is 
ultimately  referred  to  God  the  Father ;  for,  the  honor  paid  to  Christ 
being  founded  in  the  power  and  glory  to  which  he  is  exalted,  the  honor 
paid  must  naturally  follow  the  power  and  glory  to  which  it  relates, 
and,  at  the  last,  terminate  in  the  Fountain  and  Origin  of  that  power 
and  glory,  even  God  the  Father.  —  Bishop  Sherlock  :  Discourses, 
vol  iv.  pp.  63-8. 

In  books  the  object  of  which  is  to  prove  the  Deity  of  Christ,  it  is  usual 
to  assert  that  worsliip  sliould  be  paid  only  to  Almighty  God;  and  then  to 
infer,  Crom  the  New-Testament  instances  of  reverence  and  gratitude  exhi- 
bited towards  our  Lord,  or  commanded  to  be  exhibited  to  him,  that  he  is 
essentially  divine  in  his  nature  and  his  attributes.  But  a  falsity  is  coutanied 
in  the  premises  from  which  the  conclusion  is  drawn;  for,  unless  the  worship 
be  such  as  to  imply  the  profoundest  emotions  of  the  heart  and  soul,  it  is 
not  entitled  to  be  called  divine,  and  the  being  to  whom  the  prayers  and 
thanksgivings  are  presented  is  not  necessarily  God.  There  are,  unquestion- 
ably, various  degrees  and  qualities  of  worship,  which,  if  not  disproportioned 
to  the  object  revered,  are  far  from  being  worthy  of  blame.  This  feeling, 
with  its  expression,  is  involved  in  all  the  gratitude  and  veneration  mani 
fested  by  one  person  towards  another,  —  by  the  child  towards  its  pareiUs; 
by  the  pupil  towards  his  teacher;  by  the  dependant  towards  his  superior; 
by  men  in  general  towards  the  eminently  great  and  good  of  all  ages,  who 
have  lived  and  labored  and  died  for  the  welfare  of  their  country  or  of  their 
race.  And  this  deep  love,  this  reverential  regard  of  the  human  heart  for 
those  wiio  have  conferred  happiness  and  blessings,  unless  it  shuts  cut  God 
from  the  inmost  recesses  of  the  soul,  has  ever  been  thought  to  bring  into 
play  some  of  the  best  instincts  and  aflections  of  our  nature.  If,  then,  as 
children,  it  is  our  sacred  duty  to  honor  our  father  and  mother;  if,  as  subjects 
and  servants,  we  should  reverence  and  obey  such  as  have  axUhority  over 
ns;  if,  as  pupils  in  the  school  of  letters  or  of  life,  we  are  to  feel  gratitude  to 
those  who  have  guided  our  step*,  trained  our  minds,  or  taught  us  lessons  of 
rectitude  and  love;  if,  as  depeudants  in  a  world  of  order  aud  subordination, 

40* 


474  CHRIST  NOT   TO   BE   WORSHIPPKT) 

anjl  needful  of  thu  assistance  of  others,  we  may  justly  ask  and  ase  their 
aid;  if,  as  inheritors  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  wealth  bequeathed  to  us 
by  patriots,  poets,  prophets,  and  philanthropists,  we  may  cherish  their 
memories,  celebrate  their  anniversaries,  and  raise  to  their  names  the  song 
of  thanksgiving  and  joy,  —  without  encroaching  on  the  supreme  and  unri- 
valled honors  due  to  Him  from  whom  every  good  and  peifect  gift  proceeds, 
—  surelj'  the  sacred  writers  might  enjoin  the  practice,  or  set  the  example, 
of  obeying,  honoring,  and  blessing  that  h(jly  one  whom  God  sent  to  be  the 
Saviour  of  the  world;  whom  "God  anointed  with  the  oil  of  gladness,  '  of 
ins|)iration  and  power,  "above  his  fellows;'*  and  whom,  for  his  perfect 
obedience  to  the  divine  will,  God  raised  to  a  glory  far  beyond  that  of  other 
benefactors,  —  surely  they  might  require  and  perforin  all  this,  without 
meaning  to  assign  to  him  that  worship  and  adoration  which  is  due,  in  the 
highest  sense,  to  his  Father  and  his  God. 

The  question,  then,  is  not  whether  the  first  disciples  and  others  paid 
honor  and  reverence  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  whether  he  and  his  apostles 
enjoined  worship  to  be  offered  to  him;  but,  rather,  whether  this  was  meant 
to  ex])ress  divine,  supreme  adoration;  whether  it  was  presented,  and  was 
required  to  be  presented,  to  him  as  the  Messiah  and  Mediator,  "  through 
whom  God  was  reconciling  the  world  to  himself,"  or,  on  the  contrary,  as 
the  original  Source  and  Author  of  the  blessings  of  the  gospel.  Now,  we 
have  the  strongest  grounds  for  believing  that  the  worship  spoken  of  bj-  the 
■writers  of  the  New  Testament,  in  reference  to  their  Lord  and  Master,  was 
not  of  a  primary,  but  of  an  inferior,  kind;  that  those  who  knew  not  the 
nature  of  his  mission,  but  who  felt  respect  for  his  character,  and  gratitude 
for  his  acts  of  benevolence,  designed  merely  to  pay  him  civil  homage,  —  the 
worship  usually  manifested  in  the  East  to  men  of  superior  power  and  rank; 
and  that  the  apostles,  who  hail  heard  the  behest  of  Jesus  to  honor  him  as 
the  Son  and  Messenger  of  God,  never  once  bent  the  knee  to  him,  —  never 
once,  even  in  the  unmeasured  language  of  overflowing  hearts,  oflered  him  a 
petition  or  a  thanksgiving,  —  never  once,  either  by  implication  or  command, 
required  for  him  the  praises  of  the  lip,  the  gratitude  of  the  soul,  or  the 
obedience  of  the  life,  —  in  any  sense  which  would  attribute  to  him  the  ho- 
nors of  Divinity,  or  imply  that  he  was  greater  than  he  always  rejjresented 
himself  to  be;  namely,  the  Agent,  the  chosen  Servant,  the  great  Prophet, 
Ihe  moral  Image,  and  the  belovetl  Child,  of  God. 

So  marked  is  the  difference  in  the  nature  of  the  worship  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament  to  have  been  paid  to  Almighty  God,  and  to  his  best-beloved 
Son,  and  so  frequently  are  the  prayers  and  thanksgivings  of  the  apostles 
directed  to  the  God  and  Father  of  Christ,  and  so  seldom  to  Christ  himself, 
—  him  who,  with  blended  lowliness  and  reverence,  commanded  religious 
service  to  be  presented  only  to  the  Father,  and  never  prayed  to  any  other 
being  or  person,  —  that,  notwithstanding  their  belief  in  the  essential  Deity 
of  Christ,  some  of  the  orthodox  have  been  forced  to  acknowledge  that  to 
the  Father  alone  should  primary  adoration  be  given;  and  that  their  own 
practice,  and  that  of  the  cluirclios  to  which  they  belong,  is  usually  in  accord- 
nuce  with  the  example  and  injunctions  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles. 


WITH  SUPREME  ADORATION.  475 

These  ncknowledgments  are  verified  partly  by  the  extracts  made  in 
pp.  397-405,  and  partly  by  the  observations  in  the  present  section,  which 
interpi-et  in  a  Unitarian  sense  some  texts  of  Scripture  which  have  been 
regartled  as  evincing  the  propriety  of  addressing  our  Lord  as  the  object  of 
supreme  and  unqualified  adoration. 


In  the  whole  range  of  religious  controversy,  there  is  nothing  perhaps  of 
BO  remarkable  a  kind  as  that  which  has  been  exhibited  in  the  present  chap- 
tsr.  It  is  virtually  a  triumphant  vindication  of  Unitarian  principles  from 
the  pens  of  honest  and  learned  Trinitarians  ;  for,  though  more  or  less 
tinctured  by  unscriptural  phraseology  and  thought,  it  does  yet,  by  its  ful- 
ness of  rational  and  biblical  proof  for  the  niferiority  of  Clirist  to  the  Father, 
destroj'  the  corner-stone  of  the  foundation  on  which  Trinitarianism  is  raised. 
It  shows  that  in  whatever  light  Christ  may  be  regarded,  —  whether  as  a  pre- 
existent  dweller  in  heaven,  or  as  a  sojourner  upon  earth,  —  whether  as  the 
son  of  Mary,  or  as  the  Child  and  Son  of  God,  —  whether  as  the  Servant  or 
the  Representative  of  the  Almighty,  —  whether  as  a  Prophet  in  the  form  of 
a  slave,  or  an  p]xemplar  in  the  image  of  God;  as  the  meekest  and  lowliest 
of  divine  Messengers,  or  the  greatest  and  most  sublime,  —  whether  as  he 
who  was  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  and  had  a  perfect  acquaintance  with 
the  Father's  character  and  designs,  or  as  he  who  was  ignorant  of  the  time 
of  certain  events,  a  knowledge  of  which  did  not  come  within  the  sphere  of 
his  mission,  —  whether  as  the  worker  of  miracles  and  the  author  and 
bestower  of  eternal  life,  or  as  the  petitioner  of  the  P'ather  and  the  doer  of 
his  will,  —  whether  as  Jehovah's  Christ,  or  the  people's  Saviour,  —  whether 
as  the  tried  and  tempted,  who  overcame  Satan  by  his  disinterestedness  and 
piety,  or  as  the  holy  and  sinless  one,  who  shrank  at  the  thought  of  equalizing 
his  goodness  with  that  of  the  infinite  Source  of  all  good,  —  whether  as  a 
suflering  Messiah,  or  a  moral  Redeemer;  the  rejected  of  men,  or  the  glorified 
of  God;  a  crucified  man,  or  a  victorious  and  universal  Potentate,  the  Lord 
and  King  of  his  church,  the  assessor  at  God's  right  hand,  and  the  Judge  of 
the  world;  —  it  shows,  we  say,  that  in  all  his  existence,  teachings,  works, 
trials,  sufferings,  and  state  of  glory,  —  in  the  Nazarean  cradle,  and  in  the 
carpenter's  shop;  on  the  Sea  of  Genesareth,  and  on  the  banks  of  the  Jor- 
dan; in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem,  and  in  the  villages  of  Galilee;  at  tiie 
mount  sacred  to  Samaritan  hearts,  and  in  the  temple  hallowed  by  Jewisti 
prayers,  —  he  was  filled  with  the  life,  the  power,  the  inspiration,  of  the 
Tatlier;  proving  that  in  the  Father  he  lived  and  moved,  and  had  his  being; 
that  on  him  he  leaned  for  support;  that  from  him  he  derived  strength  and 
consolation;  that  to  him  were  devoted  his  earliest  and  his  latest  thoughts, — 
his  holy  breathings,  —  his  fervent  prayers,  —  his  ever-felt  gratitude,  —  his 
heart  and  soul,  with  all  their  energies,  all  their  promptings  of  love,  reve 
rence,  trust,  obedience,  and  submission. 

By  the  particulars  now  enumerated,  —  which,  for  the  sake  of  brevity 
and  euiphasis,  we  have  expressed  iu  our  own  terms,  instead  of  repeating  the 


476  CUKIST   INFERIOR  TO   GOD. 

more  amplified  language  of  the  writers  previously  quoted,  —  an  attempt  has 
been  made  to  give  a  fair  summary  and  representation  of  the  principal  con- 
tents of  this  chapter.  And  now  we  put  the  question  to  the  mind  of  the 
unbiased  reader,  if  acknowledgments  of  Christ's  inferiority  to  the  Father, 
or  statements  implicatory  of  this  doctrine,  such  as  these,  should  not  be 
regarded  as  having  brought  to  an  end  all  controversy'  respecting  the  Deity 
of  our  Lord.  For  if  he  represents  himself,  and  is  represented  by  the  a|)os- 
tles,  in  his  condition,  character,  and  offices,  as  a  being  dependent  on  and  in 
Bubordinatioii  to  God,  he  could  not  be,  what  creeds  and  churches  say  he 
•was,  God  himself,  or  equal  to  him  in  power  and  glory;  nor  could  one  portion 
of  his  nature,  the  human,  liave  been  metaphysically  united  to  another  jjor- 
tion,  the  divine,  consisting  of  an  itifinite  and  eternal  Agent  distinct  from  the 
Father,  and  called  God  the  Son;  since  the  Scriptures  never  assert  or  clearly 
imply  that  the  human  nature  of  Jesus,  or,  as  we  would  say,  Jesus  himself, 
stood  or  acted  in  relation  to  or  in  union  with  any  other  divine  person  thjin 
the  Father. 

But,  so  long  as  it  continues,  error  will,  even  after  having  thrown  down 
its  mightiest  weapons  at  the  feet  of  truth,  retain  some  show  or  attitude  of 
defence;  and  thus  it  is  that  Trinitarianisni  has  been  forced  to  depend  on  a 
few  passages  in  Scripture  which  are  thought  to  attribute  to  our  Lord  some 
of  the  characteristics  or  peculiar  titles  of  Deity.  But,  if  the  sacred  penmen 
are  consistent  with  themselves  in  the  views  they  have  taken  of  the  nature 
of  Christ,  is  it  not  a  justifiable  and  indeed  a  wise  procedure  to  interpret  a 
few  texts  which  are  obscure,  doubtful,  or  figurative,  by  those  which  are 
plain,  and  by  the  general  tenor  of  their  writings;  and,  where  the  precise 
meaning  of  a  particular  passage  cannot  be  obtained  either  from  the  language 
used  or  from  the  context,  rather  to  restrain  our  judgment  than  have  recourse 
to  an  explanation,  which,  tl.ough  a  passage  in  itself  may  bear  it,  is  in- 
consistent with  the  author's  known  sentiments,  or  with  the  doctrines  of 
Scripture  as  repeatedly  expressed  in  terms  of  clear  and  unambiguous 
import'?  (See  pp.  '222-5.)  Unquestionably,  this  is  a  very  proper  course. 
And  accordingly,  as  will  be  proved  in  the  remaining  vohunes  of  this  work, 
these  few  texts  are  interpreted  by  some  of  the  orthodox  in  a  Unitariau 
sense,  either  on  the  ground  that  the  divine  names  or  titles  are  a])plied  by 
the  sacred  writers,  not  to  Christ,  but  to  the  Father;  or,  if  applied  to  him, 
that  they  are  used  in  a  sense  similar  to  that  recognized  by  Jesus  himself, 
when,  after  quoting  a  passage  in  one  of  the  Psalms,  ho  says  (John  x.  36) 
tbat  they  are  "  called  gotU  to  whom  the  word  of  God  came." 


477 


CHAPTER    IX. 

THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  NOT  A  THIRD  PERSON  IN  THE   GODHE.'iJ)^ 
BUT   GOD   HIMSELF,  OR  HIS  INFLUENCES,  GIFTS,  &c. 


8ECT.  I.  —  DEFICIENCY  OF  EVIDENCE  FOR  THE   DEITY  OF   THE   HOLT 
GHOST,   AS   A   THIRD   PERSON   IN  THE   GODHEAD. 

It  has  been  the  method  of  the  wisest  and  best  men,  since  the  date  of  Christianity, 
to  prefer  express  Scripture,  or  certain  consequences  from  Scripture,  before  merely 
human  and  philosophical  conjectures.  —  Dr.  Daniel  Waterland. 

It  cannot  be  proved,  out  of  the  whole  number  of  passages  in  the 
Old  Testament  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  mentioned,  that  this  is  a 
person  in  the  Godhead ;  and  it  is  now  the  almost  universally  received 
opinion  of  learned  commentators,  that,  in  the  language  of  the  Jews, 
the  "  Holy  Spirit "  means  nothing  more  than  divine  inspiration,  with- 
out any  reference  to  a  person.  —  J.  D.  Michaelis  :  Anmerk.  on  John 
itvi.  13-15. 

The  term  "  God "  is  never  [in  Scripture]  expressly  attributed  to 
the  Holy  Spmt,  though  it  is  usual  to  infer  it  from  Acts  v.  4,  where 
Peter,  who  in  the  third  verse  had  asked  Ananias,  "  Why  hath  Satan 
filled  thy  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  "  says,  "  Thou  hast  not  Hed 
unto  men,  but  unto  God."  But,  in  our  opinion,  this  deduction  is  not 
valid ;  for  by  the  "  Holy  Spiiit "  are  to  be  understood  the  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  with  which  the  apostles  were  furnished,  and  spoke  in 
the  name  of  God.  Persons,  therefore,  who  he  to  the  ajio.stles 
spealving  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  are  rightly  said  to  lie  to  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  as  those  who  despise  the  apostles  are  said  to  despise 
the  Lord,  and  those  who  despise  the  Lord  Jesus  despise  Him  that  sent 
him.  — "Philip  Limborch  :  Theol.  Christiana,  lib.  ii.  cap.  17,  §  23. 

The  proof  that  divine  worship  was  paid  to  the  Holy  Sjjirit  is  not 
so  abundant  and  satisfactory  as  that  adduced  to  prove  that  divine  wor- 
ship was  rendered  to  Christ.  .  .  .  These  [the  texts  in  which  the  Holy 


478  DEFICIENCY  OF  EVIDENCE 

S,)irit  is  called  Gocl,&c.]  are  sometimes  used  to  prove  the  Divinity  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  but  are  either  inferior  to  the  former  in  evidence,  or 
•have  uo  bearing  upon  l!ie  subject.  Writers  have  thnught  too  nuich  of 
the  number  of  texts,  and  have  collected  indiscriminatily  many  which 
have  only  an  apparent  relation  to  the  subject.  Especially  thi'v  have 
endeavored  to  search  out  a  multitude  of  texts  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  expressly  called  God.  But  the  simple  appellation  "God"  is  not 
of  itself  suflicient  to  ])rove  the  Supreme  Divinity  of  the  subject  to 
whom  it  is  given,  as  Christ  liimself  declared,  John  x.  34,  ."35.  ...  It 
is  doulnful,  in  many  of  these  texts  in  which  the  predicate  "  God  "  is 
used,  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  person  is  intended.  Many  of 
them,  at  least,  may  be  ex})lained  without  necessarily  supposing  a 
personal  subject.  The  following  texts  are  often  quoted :  Acts  v.  3, 4. 
Peter  tells  Ananias,  ver.  3,  that  Satan  had  induced  him  ipEvaaaOni  rd 
■Kvn'na  ayuw  ["to  lie  to  the  Holy  Spirit''],  and  afterwards,  ver.  4. 
ovK  k\pv.vGu  avOpuiToig,  uaXu.  to)  i^cJj  ["  thou  hast  not  lied  unto  men,  l)ut 
unto  God"].  The  same  subject  who  is  called  the  "  Holy  Spirit"  in 
one  place  is  called  "  God  "  in  the  other.  But,  from  the  comparison 
of  other  passages,  it  might  be  thought  that  the  Tn-evfia  uyiov  [Holy 
Spirit]  was  here  to  be  understood  in  the  subjective  sense,  and  denoted 
the  Spirit  dwelling  in  the  apostles ;  the  higher  knowledge  and  gifts 
with  which  they  were  endowed ;  their  miraculous  powers,  as  in  ver.  32 ; 
and  the  passage  could  accordingly  be  explained  thus  :  "  Your  crime  is 
not  to  be  consitlered  as  if  you  had  intended  to  deceive  mere  men, 
because  you  knew  that  God  had  endowed  us  with  supernatural  know- 
ledge." This  explanation  is  confirmed  by  the  very  clear  text,  1  Thess. 
iv.  8,  "  He  who  desjjises  us  despises  not  men,  but  God,"  tov  dovra  rb 
vvtvfia  avTov  to  uyiov  wf  //^uf  ["  who  hath  given  unto  us  his  Holy 
Spirit  "].  Cf.  Exod.  xvi.,  where  it  is  said,  ver.  2,  that  the  Israelites 
rebelled  against  Moses  and  Aaron  ;  but  Moses  tells  them,  ver.  8, 
"  Your  rebellion  is  nota(jainstus,but  against  6'ot/,  whose  messengers 
we  are."  Does  this  j)rove  that  Moses  and  Aaron  belonged  to  the 
Godhead?  .  .  .  Matt,  xxviii.  19  cannot,  in  itself  considered,  be  used 
as  a  proof-text,  because  the  mere  collocation  of  the  name  Holy  Spii  it 
wilh  liiat  of  the  Eatiier  and  Son  does  not  prove  that  he  possesses 
divine  nature  in  common  with  them.  .  .  .  The  passage,  2  Cor.  iii.  17, 
d  de  Kvpiog  TO  TTvivfu'i  ioTi,  has  sometimes  been  translated,  "the  Spiiit 
is  Jehovah  himself."  But  the  meaning  is,  "  Christ  is  the  true  Si)irit 
of  the  Old  Testament ;  "  i.  e.,  the  Old  Testament  contains  essentially 
the  same  doctrine  which  Christ  taught,  viz.,  the  necessity  of  the 


FOR  THE   DEITY  OF   THE   HOLY   GHOST.  479 

renewal  of  the  heart,  and  inward  piety.  Some  have  endeavored  to 
prove  the  Dinnity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  fi-ora  a  comparison  of  different 
texts ;  but,  in  doing  this,  they  have  often  resorted  to  forced  and  mi- 
natm'al  interpretations.  An  instance  of  this  may  be  seen  in  the 
comparison  of  the  texts,  Isa.  vi.  8-10  and  Acts  xxviii.  26,  27.  In 
the  former  of  these  we  read,  "  Jehovah  said.  Go  to  this  people,"  &c. ; 
but  in  the  latter,  Tzvevaa  to  uyiov  'ekahjae  diu  'Haatov,  .  .  .  Myov,  k.t.X. 
I"  the  Holy  Spirit  spake  by  Esaias  the  prophet,  .  .  .  saying,"  &c.] 
Here  the  same  person  who  in  the  former  text  is  called  riin";'  [Jeho- 
vah], in  the  latter  is  called  irvEvua  uytov  [the  Holy  Spirit].  But 
irvEVfia  uyiov  may  be  used  in  its  more  general  sense  for  the  Deity,  and 
does  not  here  necessarily  designate  the  person  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  — • 
G.  C.  Knapp  :  Christian  Theology,  sect.  xl. 

We  have  omitted  from  this  quotation  the  following  remarks  of  Dr- 
Knapp:  "  But  when  it  is  proved,  from  other  texts,  that  Christ,  the  apostles, 
and  the  early  Christians,  understood  the  ni'ev/ia  uyiov  [Holy  Spirit]  to  be  a 
personal  subject,  belonging  to  the  Godhead  (as  those  concerned  in  this  event 
undoubtedly  did),  then  this  text  [Acts  v.  3,  4]  and  many  of  the  following 
may  be  regarded  as  satisfactory  proof  of  the  Divinity  of  this  Spirit.  But 
when  introduced  before  these  texts,  by  which  their  meaning  is  determined, 
or  out  of  their  relation  to  them,  they  prove  nothing.  The  sense  of  the  text 
in  Acts,  as  determined  by  the  preceding  texts,  is  plainlj'  this:  '  For  you  to 
intend  to  deceive  us,  who  are  apostles,  —  us,  ^^tllom  you  knew  to  be  under 
the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  —  is  to  be  considered  the  same  as 
if  you  had  intended  to  deceive  God;  for  you  knew  that  he  from  whom  this 
influence  proceeds  is  regarded  by  us  as  God.'  The  same  may  be  said  with 
respect  to  the  formula  of  baptism,  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  .  .  .  When  his  Divinity 
[that  of  the  Holy  Spirit]  has  been  proved  by  other  texts,  then  this  also  may 
be  cited ;  because  from  the  former  we  learn  how  the  latter  must  be  under- 
stood, and  was  actually  understood  in  the  first  ages  of  the  church." 

That  is,  as  we  understand  the  qualification  specified,  Assume  the  truth 
of  the  proposition  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  third  personal  distinction  in  the 
divine  nature,  and  certain  passages  of  Scripture,  which  prove  nothing  of 
the  kind,  may  be  justly  thought  to  afibrd  satisfactory  evidence  for  the  doc- 
trine! But,  after  all,  the  interpretation  of  Acts  v.  3,  4,  which  Dr.  Knapp 
founds  on  the  Trinitarian  assumption,  does  not  by  any  means  imply  that 
aither  Peter  or  Ananias  considered  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  a  person  diflferent 
from  the  Father;  and  the  reason  is  perfectly  obvious;  for  the  Father,  —  the 
"  Father  of  lights,"  from  whom  "  cometh  every  good  and  every  perfect 
gift,"  —  the  God  wlio  "  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  holy  spirit  and 
with  power,"  imparting  to  him  an  unmeasured  supply  of  that  spirit,  —  is 
himself  emphatically  a  Si'iuiT,  and  claims  from  all  his  intellii^ent  offspring 
that  they  worship  him  as  true  worshippers,  "  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  See 
James  i.  17.   Acts  x.  38.  John  iii.  34;  iv.  23,  24. 


480   LACK  OF  PROOF  FOR  THE  DEITY  OF  A  THIRD  PERSON 

In  proof  of  the  Deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  a  third  person  in  the  God 
head,  tliis  learned  writer  ajjpea's  to  some  half-dozen  passages ;  which, 
however,  as  will  be  seen  iu  future  volumes  of  our  work,  may  be  more 
scripturally  explained  either  of  the  divine  agency  personified,  or  of  God 
himself,  without  involving  the  notion  of  hypostatical  distinctions. 

In  theology,  my  father  [jjastor  of  a  Lutheran  church  at  Gersdorf 
and  at  Liclitenstein]  remained  true  to  the  school  of  the  celel)rated 
Crusius,  and  hence  belonged  to  the  orthodox.  Still  he  could  tolerate 
more  liberal  views ;  and  I  remember  very  well  that  he  once  said  to  a 
friend,  what  surprised  me  though  a  boy,  "  We  cannot  deny  that  our 
proofs  for  the  independent  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  very 
weak."  —  C.  T.  BaETSCUNElDER,  in  Bildiotheca  Sacra  for  October, 
1852 ;  vol.  ix.  pp.  660-1. 

There  is  one  point,  and  only  one,  in  which  the  evidence  for  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  seems  at  all  defective.  Li  it  [2  Cor.  xiii.  14] 
Jesus  Cln-ist  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  not  called  "  God "  in  express 
terms.  —  Orthodox  Presbyterian  for  Juhj,  1830. 

2  Cor.  iii.  17  .  .  .  has  been  adduced  [by  even  so  clear-headed  a 
theologian  as  the  elder  Euwakos]  as  a  proof-text  to  establish  the 
doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  the  third  person  in  the  Holy  Trinity,  and 
the  equality  of  each  and  all  in  their  essence  and  dignity.  But  in  our 
view,  according  to  all  the  rules  of  enlightened  interpretation,  the 
passage  has  no  more  to  do* with  the  Trinity  than  with  the  transmigra- 
tion of  souls.  That  cardinal  article  of  our  faith  is  totally  foreign 
from  the  train  of  reasoning  {)ursucd  by  the  apostle,  nor  could  he  have 
introduced  it  there  without  doing  violence  to  the  laws  of  thought  and 
association.  —  Christian  Review  for  June,  1837 ;  vol.  ii.  p.  212. 


Other  authorities,  acknowledging  the  deficiency  of  the  evidence  for  the 
Deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  a  person  distinct  from  the  God  and  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  have  been  noticed  iu  preceding  pages.  Thus,  in 
pp.  3:J7-8.  344-5,  357-8,  Stuaut,  Busiinell,  and  Sweetskk,  as  well  as  J.  D. 
MiciiAEhts,  confess  that  his  personality  was  unknown  to  the  Jews  before 
and  at  the  time  of  Christ;  in  pp.  366-8,  371,  374,  401,  and  409,  Kkasmus  and 
CorrEXsTEiN,  Bisliops  Tavlok  and  Attehbukv,  Dr.  Wiluam  Smkhlock, 
WiTsius,  and  the  Oxford  Tractarians,  own  that  such  a  being  is  never  in 
the  Scni)tures  called  "God;"  and  in  pp.  374.  400-1,  403,  Possevin,  Du- 
RANi),  and  HutJH  UK  St.  Chek,  Bisiiop  Tavlok,  Dr.  Thomas  Goodwin, 
Dr.  Kmmons,  and  ministers  of  churches  belonging  to  the  English  Congrega- 
tionalists,  that  there  is  no  instance,  recorded  in  the  Bible,  of  prayer  having 
been  offered  up  to  him. 


TUE  HOLY   SPIRIT,   GOD   HIMSELF.  481 


SECT.    II.  —  THE    HOLY   SPIRIT    EITHER    GOD,   THE    FATHER,  OR  THE 
DIVINE   POWER,   INFLUENCES,   OR   GIFTS. 

The  Sovereign  Spirit  of  the  world, 


Not  content. 
By  one  exertion  of  creative  power, 

His  goodness  to  reveal,  —  through  every  age,  ^ 

Through  every  moment  up  the  tract  of  time, 
His  parent-hand,  with  ever-new  increase 
Of  happiness  and  virtue,  has  adorned 
The  vast  harmonious  frame;  his  parent-hand, 
From  tlie  mute  sliell-fish  gasping  on  the  shore 
To  men,  to  angels,  to  celestial  minds, 
For  ever  leads  the  generations  on 
To  higher  scenes  of  being. 

Mark  Aeenside. 

§  1.   God,  without  distinction  of  Persons. 

The  term  "  Holy  Spirit "  has,  in  Scripture,  various  significations. 
First,  it  means  God  himself,  who  is  a  spirit  that  is  holy,  and  who  is 
sometimes  characterized  as  having  a  soul.  Thus,  Jer.  li.  14.  Amos 
vi.  8,  "  God  hath  sworn  by  his  soul ; "  that  is,  by  himself.  In  this 
sense  is  "  Holy  Spirit "  used  in  Isa.  Ixiii.  10  ["  But  they  rebelled,  and 
vexed  his  Holy  Spirit ;  therefore  he  was  turned  to  be  their  enemy, 
and  he  fought  against  them  "].  —  PniLiP  LiMBORCH :  Tlieologia 
Christiana,  lib.  vi.  cap.  6,  §  2. 

As  we  perceive  that  God  possesses,  and  that  too  in  the  highest 
perfection,  those  qualities  of  intelligence  and  will  which  constitute  a 
s])iritual  existence,  we  justly  conclude  that  he  is  a  Spirit.  Hence  it 
follows,  that  all  the  attributes  which  he  possesses  as  a  Spirit  are  con- 
nected either  with  his  understanding  or  his  will.  And,  as  he  possesses 
these  attributes  in  the  highest  perfection,  he  is  the  most  perfect  Spirit. 
.  .  .  The  Hebrew  word  n^  ,  which  is  translated  "  spirit,"  signified, 
properly  and  originally,  "wind,"  "breath"  (and  so  "speech"),  and 
"  life."  .  .  .  The  Hebrews  gave  the  name  rm  to  all  the  invisible 
powers,  whether  physical  or  moral,  which  they  saw  in  operation  in 
the  universe,  and  consequently  to  God  himself,  who  is  possessed  of  all 
conceivable  powers,  in  the  highest  possible  degree.  Thus  rm  and 
•jir;';'  m'^  [Spirit  of  Jehovah]  came  to  signify  (a)  the  nature  of  God 

41 


482  THE  HOLY   SPIKIT,   EITHER   GOD   HIMSELF, 

in  general ;  (b)  his  in^'isible  power,  as  exercised  both  in  the  materia, 
world,  in  its  creation  (Gen.  i.  2),  &c.,  and  in  the  soul  of  man.  in 
promoting  its  moral  improvement,  in  the  act  of  inspiration,  and  in  va- 
rious other  Avays :  vide  2  Sam.  xxiii.  1,  2.  —  G.  C.  IvNAPP  :  Christiun 
Thtolog-y,  sect.  xix. 

To  our  minds,  it  [the  phrase  Spirit  of  God,  or  Holy  Spirit]  has  a 
definite  meaning.  We  understand  it  as  the  third  person  of  the  Holy 
Trinity.  The  usage  in  the  Old  Testament  does  not  necessarily  imply 
such  a  knowledge.  It  is  sometimes  a  term  convertil)le  with  God. 
Sometimes  it  means  a  dinne  influence.  It  is  the  exerted  or  manifested 
power  of  Jehovah.  It  is  eitlier  God  himself,  or  an  agency  assumed  as 
the  medium  of  the  divine  operation.  There  is  no  positive  evidence 
that  the  Spirit  spoken  of  in  the  Old  Testament  was  recognized  either 
as  a  mode  of  the  divine  existence,  or  as  one  of  a  Trinity  of  persons 
in  the  dinne  essence.  It  was  either  a  name  of  God  himself,  not 
indicating  any  peculiarity  in  his  nature,  or  the  expression  of  the  divine 
energy  as  it  produced  results  in  the  material  world,  or  enliglitened 
and  directed  the  human  mind.  —  Dr.  Skth  Sweetser,  in  Bibliotheca 
Sacra  for  January,  1854 ;  vol.  xi.  p.  99. 

§  2.   The  Holy  Spirit,  the  Power,  Influe>'Ce,  or  Gifts 
OF  God. 

He  that  Avill  carefully  observe  the  language  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
shall  find  that  this  Avord  "  Spirit,"  or  "  Holy  Ghost,"  is  most  usually, 
in  the  New  Testament,  taken  for  the  extraordinai-y  gifts  of  that  age. 
—  Richard  Baxter  :  Unreasonableness  of  Infidelity ;  in  Practical 
Works,  vol.  XX.  p.  7. 

For  the  better  understanding  of  these  words  [viz.  "  full  of  tlie 
Holy  Ghost,"  in  Luke  iv.  1.],  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  by  the  term 
"Holy  Ghost"  is  to  be  understood  the  prophetic  gifts  wherewithal 
Clnist  was  filled  for  the  preacliing  and  publisliing  of  the  gospel,  as 
•  the  revealing  of  the  will  of  God,  and  working  miracles.  The  Jews, 
by  the  phrase  "  Holy  Ghost,"  continually  intend  ])rophetic  gifts, 
wherewith  men  and  women  were  endued;  and  in  this  sense  is  the 
expression  most  constantly  to  be  taken  in  the  New  Testament,  when 
it  sj)oaket!i  not  of  the  third  person  in  the  Trinity  itself;  as,  Luke  i.. 
15,41,67.  John  vii.  ;i9.  Actsii.  4;  viii.  18;  x.  44;  xiii.  52;  xix.  2; 
and  in  very  many  other  places.  To  work  miracles,  to  expound  diffi- 
culties, t<i  Ileal  diseases,  to  teach  divinity,  to  foretell  things  to  come, 


OR  THE  DIVINE   POWER,   INFLUENCE,   OR  GIFTS.  483 

and  the  like,  were  not  so  properly  the  fruit  of  the  union  of  the  human 
nature  to  the  God^iead ;  for  even  mere  men  had  been  enabled  to  do 
the  same.  —  Abridged  from  Dr.  John  LiGnxFOOT :  Harmony  of  the 
Four  Evangelists ;  in  Works,  vol.  iv.  pp.  35 1-3. 

"  Spirit "  signifies  wind  or  breath ;  and  in  the  Old  Testament  it 
stands  frequently  in  that  sense.  The  "  Spirit  of  God,"  or  "  wind  of 
God,"  stands  sometimes  for  a  high  and  strong  wind ;  but  more  fre- 
quently it  signifies  a  secret  impression  made  by  God  on  the  mind  of 
a  prophet.  In  the  New  Testament,  this  word  "  Holy  Ghost  "  stands 
most  commonly  for  that  wonderful  effusion  of  those  miraculous  virtues 
that  was  poured  out  at  Pentecost  on  the  apostles;  by  which  their 
spirits  were  not  only  exalted  with  extraordinary  degrees  of  zeal  and 
courage,  of  authority  and  utterance,  but  they  were  furnished  with  the 
gifts  of  tongues  and  of  miracles.  And,  besides  that  first  and  great 
effusion,  several  Christians  received  particular  talents  and  inspirations, 
which  are  most  commonly  expressed  by  the  word  "  Spirit "  or  inspi- 
ration. Those  inward  assistances  by  which  the  fi-ame  and  temper 
of  men's  minds  are  changed  and  renewed  are  lilcewise  called  "  the 
Spirit,"  or  the  "  Holy  Spirit,"  or  "  Holy  Ghost."  So  Christ  said  to 
Nicodemus,  that,  "  except  a  man  be  bom  of  Avater  and  of  the  SjDirit, 
he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God ; "  and  that  his  "  heavenly  Father 
■would  give  the  Holy  Spii-it  to  every  one  that  asked  him."  By  these 
it  is  plain  that  extraordinary  or  miraculous  inspirations  are  not  meant ; 
for  these  are  not  every  Christian's  portion.  —  BiSHOP  BuRNET : 
Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  Art.  V.  p.  84. 

There  are  many  passages  in  which  "  the  Spirit  of  God  "  means 
gifts  or  powers  communicated  to  men,  and  from  which  we  are  not 
warranted  to  infer  that  there  is  a  person  who  is  the  fountain  and 
distributer  of  these  gifts.  So  we  read  often  in  the  Old  Testament, 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  him,"  when  nothing  more  is 
necessarily  implied  under  the  exj^ression  than  that  the  person  spoken 
of  was  endowed  with  an  extraordinary  degree  of  skill  or  might  or 
wisdom.  So  the  promises  of  the  Old  Testament,  "  I  will  pour  out  my 
spirit  upon  you,"  were  fulfilled  under  the  New  Testament  by  what  are 
there  called  "  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  "  in  reference  to  which  we 
read,  "  that  Christians  received  the  Holy  Ghost,"  "  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  given  to  them,"  "  that  they  were  filled  with  the  Spirit." 
Neither  the  words  of  the  promise,  nor  the  words  that  relate  to  the 
fulfilment  of  it,  suggest  the  personality  of  the  Spirit.  —  Dr.  George 
Hill  :  Lectures  in  Divinity,  vol.  i.  j).  439. 


484  THE  HOLY  spirit  either  god  or  his  gifts. 

It  is  agreed,  on  all  sides,  that  tlie  word  "  spirit,"  originally  signi- 
fjing  air  in  motion,  and  breath,  was  applied  in  some  more  remote 
significations,  and  particularly  to  mind  and  its  affections,  to  intelligent 
creatures  superior  to  man,  and  to  any  species  of  powerful  influence, 
the  cause  of  which  was  imperfectly  or  not  at  all  known ;  but  more 
especially  to  The  immediate  energy  of  the  Deity ;  and,  in  a  still  more 
restricted  sense,  to  the  Deity  himself.  It  is  further  admitted,  that, 
in  many  places,  the  phrase  "  spirit  of  God "  and  its  synonyms  are 
used  to  denote  any  especial  influence  or  energy  of  God,  whether 
exercised  in  a  miracidous  manner,  or  according  to  the  ordinary  lawa 
of  nature.  But  an  accurate  examination  will,  I  conceive,  satislactorily 
show  that,  &c.  —  Dii.  J.  P.  Smith  :  Script.  Testimony  to  tlu  Messiahf 
vol.  ii.  p.  446. 

'.l"i~p  nn  ["  Holy  Spirit"]  frequently  signifies  the  di\ine  nature, 
or  God  himself;  but  it  also  denotes  the  divine  power,  as  displayed 
both  in  the  material  and  spiritual  world ;  also  the  divine  understand- 
ing and  knowledge,  and  the  communication  of  it  to  men.  .  .  .  All  who 
oppose  the  truth  of  God,  or  persecute  the  prophets  who  teach  it,  even 
those  wlio  put  hindrances  in  the  way  of  the  influence  of  religion  over 
themselves  or  others,  are  said  to  resist  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  afilict,  to 
grieve  it,  &c.,  Isa.  Ixiii.  10;  Eph.  iv.  30;  Acts  vii.  51.  Since,  now, 
the  sacred  writers,  like  all  others,  make  use  of  the  figure  prosopopeia, 
and  personify  these  divine  influences,  —  speaking  of  them  as  the 
"  Holy  Spirit,"  as  they  often  do  of  the  wisdom  and  other  attributes 
of  God,  —  we  should  be  cautious  in  the  selection  of  texts  from  wliich 
the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  be  ])roved.  We  should  rest 
content  with  those  which  are  most  clear  and  explicit ;  for  nothing  is 
gained  by  collecting  a  large  number.  —  Geo.  C.  Knapp  :  Christian 
Theology,  sect,  xxxix.  I. 

For  proof  of  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  different  from  that  of 
the  Father,  Dr.  Knait  rests  chiefly  on  John  xiv.  16,  17;  xv.  26;  and  on  a 
few  other  passages,  which  represent  the  Spirit  of  God  as  willinfr,  searching, 
speaking,  sending,  &c.  But  those  to  wliich  he  refers  in  the  Gospel  of  John 
teach,  according  to  the  acknowledgment  of  our  author,  that  the  Spirit  was 
commissUmed  by  atid  depi'ndeiit  on  the  Father  nnd  the  Son;  and  therefore, 
unhappily  for  the  Trinitarian  cause,  prove  too  much.  The  other  passage* 
may  easily  be  brought  under  Knatp's  own  principles  of  interpretation; 
that  is,  the  Holy  Spirit  inay  either  signify  God  himself,  without  having 
any  reference  to  hypostatical  distinctions,  or,  by  the  figure  prosopopeia,  be 
spoken  of  as  having  personal  attributes,  without  implying  a  real  personal 
consciousness. 


THE  HOLY   SPIRIT   INFERIOR  TO   GOD.  485 


BECT.  III.  —  niE   HOLY  SPIRIJ",   IF  A  PERSON   DIFFEUENT  FROM  THE 
FATHER,   INFERIOR  TO   HIM   AND   CHRIST. 

That  heavenly  Teacher,  sent  from  God, 

Shall  3'our  whole  soul  inspire; 
Your  minds  shall  fill  with  sacred  truth, 

Your  hearts  with  sacred  fire. 

Scotch  PARAPnRASE. 

There  *s  an  order,  by  which,  of  these  persons,  the  Father  is  the 
first,  the  cjo.i  the  second,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  the  third.  Nor  is  this 
order  arbitrary  or  external,  but  internal  and  necessary,  by  virtue  of  a 
subordination  of  the  second  unto  the  first,  and  of  the  third  unto  the 
first  and  second.  The  Godhead  was  communicated  from  the  Father 
to  the  Son,  not  from  the  Son  unto  the  Father.  .  .  .  Again,  the  same 
Godhead  was  communicated  by  the  Father  and  the  Son  unto  the 
Holy  Ghost,  not  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  Father  or  the  Son.  .  .  . 

This  was  also  done  from  all  eternity The  Father  is  never 

sent  by  the  Son,  because  he  received  not  the  Godhead  from  him ; 
but  the  Father  sendeth  the  Son,  because  he  communicated  the  God- 
head to  him.  In  the  same  manner,  neither  the  Father  nor  the  Son 
is  ever  sent  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  because  neither  of  them  received 
the  divine  natui'e  from  the  Spirit ;  but  both  the  Father  and  the  Son 
sendeth  the  Holy  Ghost,  because  the  divine  nature,  common  to  both 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  was  communicated  by  them  both  to  the  Holy 
Ghost.  ...  As  the  Son  is  God  of  God  by  being  of  the  Father,  so  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  God  of  God  by  being  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  as 
receiving  that  infinite  and  eternal  essence  from  them  both.  —  BiSHOP 
Pearson  :  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  Art.  VHI.  pp.  452,  454-5. 

The  Holy  Ghost  ...  is  not  self-originated,  but  proceedeth  from 
the  Father  eternally  as  his  original,  and  is  sent  by  the  Son.  —  Bishop 
Bull  :  Life  by  Robert  JVeison,  p.  304. 

Tlie  dogma  of  the  Spirit's  eternal  procession  seems  to  be  quite  repug- 
nant to  reason,  and  is  certainly  nowhere  revealed  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures ; 
see  I)r.  Isaac  Bakkow,  as  quoted  in  p.  319;  and  Cochl.eus,  Masknius, 
RiCHAUD  Hooker,  Bishop  Sanukkson,  Le  Cleuc,  and  James  Caulile. 
in  pp.  273-4,  331-2,  367,  375.  But  the  supposition  of  its  truth  would  neces 
earily  imply  the  inferiority  of  such  a  being  to  the  person  or  persons  from 
whom  he  derived  liis  existence  and  perft'Ctions,  as  is  proved,  in  pp.  270-2, 
274-6,  322-3,  by  Schleiehmachek,  Emmo.ns,  Stuaut,  D.  W.  Clakk,  and 
J^iMEs  Hughes. 

41* 


486      THE  SPIRIT,  IF  A  DIFFERENT  PERSON,  IX FEUIO;: 

Let  it  be  considered,  that,  however  great  and  glorious,  however 
miglity  and  powerful,  however  wise  and  knowing,  however  venerable 
and  adorable,  this  person  [the  Holy  Ghost]  is,  and  however  intimate 
Mith  and  united  to  God  the  Father,  yet  that  all  that  he  is,  and  all 
that  he  does,  is  to  be  refen-ed  to  Christ,  as  the  Author  and  Fountain 
of  it.  —  Dr.  Daniel  Waterland:  Eight  Sermons,  pp.  193-4. 

It  is  one  benefit  or  privilege  of  the  person  of  Christ,  when  spoken 
of  as  fhstinct  from  the  Father,  to  have  the  Spirit  of  God  under  him, 
to  be  at  his  disposal,  and  to  be  his  Messenger;  which  is  infinitely 
too  much  for  any  creature.  John  xv.  26;  xvi.  7,  13,  14;  and  Acts 
ii.  33.  —  President  Edwards  :  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  535. 

The  Spirit,  who  revealed  the  gospel  to  the  apostles,  and  enabled 
them  to  c<jnfirm  it  by  miracles,  received  the  whole  from  Christ.  He, 
therefore,  is  the  liglit  of  the  world ;  and  the  Spirit,  who  insijired  the 
apostles,  shone  on  them  with  a  light  borrowed  from  him.  So  Christ 
himself  hath  told  us,  John  xvi.  13-15. —  Dr.  James  Macknight: 
Translation  of  the  Apostolical  Epistles,  Essay  1. 

As  Cln-ist  glorifies  the  Father,  so  the  Spirit  glorifies  Christ :  he  is 
the  vicegerent  and  deputy  of  Christ,  as  Christ  of  the  Father.  He 
glorifies,  not  himself,  but  Christ,  and,  in  Christ,  God.  —  ItoBERT 
Hajll  :  jYoles  of  Sermons ;  in  Works,  voL  iv.  p.  508. 


Tlie  iirforiority  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  tho  Father,  or  to  the  Father  and  the 
Sou,  is  also  acknowlcilged  by  Dr.  Isaac  Bakkow,  Archbishop  Tillotson, 
Bisliop  FowLEK,  WiTsius,  LiMUOHCii,  and  Hom>kn,  as  ah-eatly  quoted  iu 
pp.  '2GG,  2S0,  393-5.  To  tliese  authorities  it  would  be  easy  to  add  a  host 
of  others. 

Those  passap;f>s,  however,  which  speak  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  n  person 
distinct  from  and  inferior  to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  are  better  explained  on 
the  supposition  that  tiie  power  of  God,  which  was  communicated  to  Christ, 
and  which  he  promised  as  a  Comforter  or  Teacher  to  the  apo»tles,  was, 
according;  to  a  figure  of  speech  common  in  all  languages,  personified.  This 
interpretation  is  borne  out  by  the  fact,  that,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
where  the  promise  is  mentioned  as  having  been  fulfilled,  this  Holy  Spirit  is 
usually  spoken  of  in  terms  which  are  more  applicable  to  a  thing  than  to  a 
being.  See  Baxtek,  Lightfoot,  Buknet,  and  Hill,  as  quoted  iu  pages 
482-3. 


I]i5^DEXES. 


L  — TEXTS  QUOTED   OR  REFERRED   TO. 


GENESIS.  Page. 

1 228 

i.  2 482 

i.  3 348 

vi.  6 350 

viii.  21 350 

xii.  7 414 

xvii.  1 414 

xviii.  1 414 

xviii.  2 470 

xix.  1 470 

xxii.  2,  12,  16 420 

xxiii.  7,  12 470 

xxvi.  2,  24 414 

xxvi.  3 350 

xxxix.  2 350 

xlviii.  3 414 

xlviii.  15,  16 414 

EXODUS. 

iii.  2,  4-6,  14 415 

vi.  3 414 

vii.  1 425 

xvi.  2,  8 478 

xviii.  7 470 

xix.  17 350 

XX.  3 389 

xxii.  28 425 

xxxii.  4,  8 178 

LEVITICUS. 

xvi  2 414 

xxvi.  46 350 

DEUTEKONOMT. 

iv.  33 388,  389 

iv.  35  39 390 

V.  5  . ' 350 

vi.  4      .     22,  262,  286,  311,  334,  337 

389,  390;  391 


DEUT.  (contirmetl).      Page. 

viii.  3 349 

xviii.  15-19 360 

XX.  1 350 

xxxii.  39 S89,  390 


ii.  1 


JUDGES. 


416 


I.    SAMUEL. 

X.  10 483 

xvi.,  xvii.,  xxiv.,  xxvi.   .    .    .  192 

i 

I  II.    SAMUEL. 

i    ix.  6 .470 

xiv.  33 470 

xxiii.  1,  2 482 

I.    KINGS. 

xii.  22 .  349 

xviii.  7 470 

II.    KINGS. 

X.  15 40-1 

xix.  35 416 

I.  CHRONICLES. 

xvii.  3 349 

II.  CHKONICLES. 

i.  7 414 

xi.  20 192 

xiii.  2 192 

xvi.  3 349 


EZRA. 


ii.  45-54 


iii.  2.  5.  &c. 


...    206 


(70 


488 


INDEX   OF   TEXTS. 


JOB.  Page. 

iii 193 

xlii.  7,  8 1'j3 

xlii.  9 350 

PS.VLMS. 

ii.  4 350 

ii.  7 4-10 

xviii.  31 3^9 

xix.  7,  8 237 

xxii.  20 420 

xxxiii.  6 34S 

XXXV.  17    ....'«..     .  420 

xxxvi.  9 8 

xlv.  1 8 

xlv.  6 425,  426,  430 

xlv.  7 466 

Ii.  11 337 

Ixxxii.  6 425 

Ixxxvi.  10 3U0 

xc.  2 284 

xcvii.  7 471 

xcvii.  9 425 

cvii.  20 349 

ex.  7 465 

cxix.  50,  89 340 

cxlvii.  15,  18 349 

ISAIAH. 

vi.  8-10 479 

vii.  14 426 

ix.  6 427 

xxvi.  4 346 

xl.  8 349 

xl.  25  ■ 3^5 

xliv.  4 174 

xliv.  24 2S4 

xliv.  6,  8 388,  389,  390 

xlv.  5,  6,  18,  21,  22      .     .       389,  390 

xlviii.  12 388 

Iv.  11 349 

Ixiii.  10 481,  484 

Ixv.  6 73 

JICI'.KMIAII. 

1.16 178 

vi.  26 420 

vii.  4 35 

xxvii.  1 349 

xxxi.  3 414 

xxxiv.  8 •     .     .  349 

xxxvi.  1 349 

Ii.  14 481 

EZKKIKL. 

i 336 

DAMEL. 

ii.  46 470 

iv.  35 388,  389 


JOEL.  Page 

ii.  28,  29 483 

AMOS. 

vi.  8 481 

viii.  10 420 

•  IIABIJAKUK. 

i.  2,  3 193 

ZECHAKIAII. 

xii.  10 420 

31ALu\CHI. 

ii.  10 286 

MATTHEW. 

i.  20 420 

i.  23 426,  458 

ii.  2,  8,  11 470 

ii.  15-18 189 

iv.  1-11  .  .  .   450,451,452,453 

iv.  4 349,  452 

iv.  10 389,  473 

V.  18,  20,  22,  28,  32,  34,  39,  44    .     441 

vi.  9 323,  399 

vii.  1 116 

vii.  29 440 

viii.  2 470 

viii.  2,  6 442 

viii.  3 441 

ix.  2 441 

ix.  2,  6 464 

ix.  18 470 

xi.  25 399 

xi.  27 422,  468 

xii.  6,  8 464 

xii.  9-12 170 

xii.  50 26 

xiii.  11 248 

xiii.  41 465 

xiii.  54 434 

XV.  22 442 

XV.  25 470 

xvi.  13-16 469 

xvi.  14,  16,  22 352 

xvi.  16 243,  419 

xvi.  27 464,  465,  467 

xvii.  1 I'.'O 

xvii.  5 420,  421 

xviii.  26 470 

xix.  17 411 

XX.  20 470 

XX.  23 422 

xxi.  25 417 

xxii.  30-32 189 

xxii.  31,  32 416 

xxiii.  9 179 

xxiii.  16-33 170 

xxiv.  23,  26 178 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS. 


489 


MATT,  (continued). 

Page. 

xxiv.  30    . 

465 

XXV.  31     . 

.     465 

XXV.  40    .  . 

.       98 

XX vi.  36-44 

.     448 

xxvi.  37-39 

.     455 

XX vi.  39,  42 

.     456 

xxvi.  63,  64 

.     419 

xxvii.  40   43 

.     419 

xxvii.  44   . 

.     190 

xxvii.  46   . 

.     448 

x.\.vii.  6?   . 

.     443 

xxviii.  9,  17 

.     470 

xxviii.  18  . 

422,  465,  468 

xxviii.  18-20 

...     466 

xxviii.  19  . 

.  10,  232,  301,  357 

367 

-8, 

478,  479 

MARK. 

i.  41 441 

ii.  5 441 

iv.  39 441 

V.  6,  23 470 

vi.  3 442 

ix.  38 64,  99,  124 

X.  18 411 

xii.  29  .  .  .  22,  262,  286,  311,  391 

xii.  32-34 286 

xiii.  21 178 

xiii.  32 219,  422 

xiv.  32-39 448 

xiv.  33,  34 455 

xiv.  50 353 

xiv.  61,  62 419 

XV.  19 470 

XV.  32 419 

XV.  34 448 

LUKE. 

i.  1-3 188 

i.  15,  41,  67 482 

i.  32,  seq 419 

i.  35 420,  421 

i.  36,  40 435 

ii.  46 436 

ii.  52 434 

iii.  38 421 

iv.  1 482 

iv.  4 349 

iv.  8 473 

iv.  18 436 

•v.  41 419 

V.  12 470 

V.  13  20 441 

vi.  12 448 

vi.  26 150 

vii.  16 469 

ix.  28 190 

X.  21 399 

xi.  2   .......   323, 399 


LUKE  {continued).         Page. 

xi.  13 483 

xii.  32 149 

xii.  50 455 

xiv.  1-6 170 

xvii.  15-19 27 

xvii.  19 28 

xvii.  21,  23 178 

xviii.  19 411 

xxii.  32,  41-45 448 

xxii.  42 454 

xxii.  43 219 

xxii.  44 455 

xxiii.  34,  46 448 

xxiii.  39 190 

xxiv.  11,  25 354 

JOHN. 

i.  1  .  219,  338,  427,  428,  444,  467-8 

i.  1,  3 413,  426 

i.  1-14  .  .  .   228,  345,  357-8,  413 

i.  6 417 

i.  14  .  106, 420, 421,  422,  431,  444,  461 

i.  14,  18 273 

i.  18 .  .  .  .  219,  278,  364,  432,  449 

i.  49 419 

iii.  2 469 

iii.  3,  5 483 

iii.  5-16 222 

iii.  13 417 

iii.  16  ...  .  206,  266,  422,  443 

iii.  34 198,  440,  479 

iii.  35 420,  421,  468 

iv.  11 443 

iv.  23 404 

iv.  23,  24 479 

iv.  34 446 

iv.  42 245 

V.  7 443 

V.  19 410,  447,  462 

V.  19,  20,  30 266 

V.  19,  26,  27 422 

V.  19,  30 408,  448 

V.  22,  23 471 

V.  22,  25,  27 467 

V.  22,  26,  27 468 

V.  22,  27 465 

V.  23 472,  474 

V.  25,  27 419 

V.  27 464 

v.  37 415 

vi.  38-40,  57 422 

vi.  38,  41,  42,  45,  46,  50,  61,  68  .  417 

vi.  40 94 

vi.  57 266 

vi.  60,  seq 222 

vi.  63 262 

vi.  69 243 

vii.  15 434 

vii.  16 440 


490 


IXDRX   OF   TEXTS. 


JOHN  (continued).  Page. 

vii.  17 251 

vii.  39 482 

viii.  28 447,  448 

viii.  42 41" 

viii.  51-57 222 

viii.  54 422 

ix.  38 470 

X.  18 422 

X.  30 10,  446,  450,  461 

X.  31 420 

X.  34,  35 425,  478 

X.  35 476 

X.  36 117,  421 

X.  38 420,  422,  438 

xi.  25  27 243 

Xi.  25.  26,  43 441 

xi.  27 245 

xi.  41 422 

xi.  41,  42 448 

xii.  21 442 

xii.  27 455 

xii.  49,  50 422,  439 

xiii.  3 464-5,  468 

xiii.  18 189 

xiii.  35 25,  55,  66 

xiv.  9 434 

xiv.  9,  10 352-3 

xiv.  10  .     .     .420,421,422,439,447 

xiv.  16,  17 484 

xiv.  28  .     266,  270,  410,  411,  422,  445 

XV.  15 364 

XV.  16 399 

XV.  26 273,  484,  486 

xvi.  7,  13,  14 486 

xvi.  12 364 

xvi.  12,  13 354,  302 

xvi.  12-14 363 

xvi.  13-15      ....  251,  477,  486 

xvi.  23,  26 404 

xvi.  28 417 

xvii.  1-4,  6 422 

xvii.  2 468 

xvii.  3  ,      22,  245,  323,  372.  389,  390 
409,  428,  433 

xvii.  5 466 

xvii.  18      ......      417,  440 

xvii.  21 51 

xvii.  (whole  chapter).     .      448,456 

XX.  2,  16 442 

XX.  13 124 

XX.  17 266 

XX.  28 852-3,  428,  429 

XX.  31 243 

xxi.  15 31 

ACTS. 

n 357 

ii.  4 482,  483 

ii.  17,  18,  38 483 


ACTS  (continued).  Page 

ii.  22 360,  455 

ii.  22-36 244 

ii.  31-36 467 

ii.  33 486 

ii.  3.3-36 466 

ii.  33,  41 358 

ii.  36 464 

iii.  13-26 244 

iii.  22 3C0 

iv.  4 358 

iv.  8,  31 4^3 

V.  3,  4 479 

V.  3,  4,  32 478 

V.  4 477 

V.  32 4.S3 

vi.  3,  5 483 

vii.  30 415-16 

vii.  51 484 

vii.  55 463 

viii.  12 244 

viii.  17,  18 482,  483 

viii.  37 246 

ix.  17 4S3 

ix.  20 244 

X 190 

X.  25 470 

X.  35 79 

X.  38     ...     .     261,  440,  449,  479 

X.  42 467 

X.  44-47 482,  483 

xi.  23,  24 97 

xi.  24 483 

xi.  26 122 

xiii.  9,  52 483 

xiii.  28-30 244 

xiii.  38 .455 

xiii.  52 482 

XV.  8 483 

xvi.  30 443 

xvi.  31 244,  245 

xvi.  31-34 246 

xvi.  32,  33 358 

xvii.  16-32 861 

xvii.  18-20 244 

xvii.  31      ,     .     .     429,  455,  465,  467 

xviii.  17 125 

xix.  2 482,  483 

XX.  27 365 

XX.  28 429 

xxiii.  3 197 

xxiv.  14 123 

xxvi.  28 122 

xxviii.  26,  27 479 

ROMANS. 

1.  13 198 

i.  17 246 

ii.  16 407 

iii.  30 2Ke 


INDEX   OF   TEXTS, 


491 


ROMANS  (continued).       Page. 

^.5 483 

viii.  26 399 


viii.  29,  32 420,  421 

viii.  31,  32 266 

ix.  5      .     .  219,  357-8,  425,  429,  430 

X.  6-8 230 

X.  8,  9  .     .     .     .    *     .     .      243,  472 

xii.  18 49 

xiv 75 

Xiv.  1 51,  80 

Xiv,  9 455,  465,  466 

xiv.  10,  13 50 

I.  CORINTHIANS, 

i.  13 145 

i,  30 315 

ii.  2 243 

ii.  8 466  ' 

iv,  1 248 

iv,  6 243 

vii.  19 70 

viii.  4 388,  389 

viii.  4-6 286,  390 

viii.  5 425 

viii.  6 262,  396,  413 

xi.  4-10 189 

xiii.  5,  7 37 

xiv.  2,  4,  11 325 

XV,  1-4 243 

XV.  24-28 423 

XV.  27 411,  429 

XV.  28 307 

XV.  51 248 

xvi,  22 75 

II.  CORINTHIANS, 

1.  22 483 

iii,  7 189 

iii.  17 478,  480 

iv.  6 458 

V,  4 175 

V.  5 483 

V,  10 328 

V.  19 398,  426,  474 

V.  21 451 

xi.  31 411 

xiii.  14 315,  316,  480 

GALATIANS. 

ii.  11-13 194 

ii,  13,  14 197 

iii,  20 286 

iv,  4 266 

V.  19,  20 72 

vi,  7 104 

EPHESIANS. 

i,  8 899,  404 

L  6 426 


EPHESIANS  {conlimied).    Page. 

i.  9,  10 248-& 

i.  11 388 

i.  17 396,  404 

i,  17-23 466 

i.  20 467 

i.  20-22 465 

i.  20,  seq 466 

ii.  13,  18,  19 426 

ii.  18 404,  463 

iii.  3,  6,  seq 249 

iii.  14 399,  404 

iv.  2 45 

iv,  6 286 

iv,  30 484 

V.  5 433 

vi.  19 249 

vi.  24 66,  83 

PHILIPPIANS, 

i,  »-8 29 

i.  5-11 468 

i.  6 30 

i,  6,  7 439 

i.  8 444-5 

i,  8-11 465 

i.  9 429,  467 

i,  9,  10 466 

i,  9-11 471 

i.  10 444 

i.  11 408,  471 

V,  1 426 

COLOSSIANS. 

i,  12 404 

i.  13 420,  421 

i.  15  .  .  .  419,  420,  422,  428,  462-3 

i,  16,  17 413 

i.  17 406 

i.  26, 27 249 

ii.  8 2^ 

ii.  9 431,  401 

1.   THESSALONIANS, 

i.  9 396 

iii.  1> 401 

iv.  8 478,  483 

V,  21 135 

I.  TIMOTHY, 
i.  5 24J 

i.  10,  13 241 

i.  17 286,  396 

ii.  5  .  .  286,  323,  398,  445,  455,  467 

iii.  9 248 

iii.  16  .  218, 219, 247  374,  430,  445 
458,  462,  467 

V.  21 433 

V.  23 188,  193 

vi,  3 241 


4'J2 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS. 


I.  TIM.  (continued).        Page. 

vi.  4 74,  242 

vi.  13 433 

vi.  20 242 


11.    TIMOTHY. 


i.  13. 

ii.  19 
ii.  23 


242 
123 
242 


iii.  16 193 

iv.  3 241 

iv.  13 188,  ly3 

TITUS. 

i.  9,  13 241 

ii.  1,  2.  8 241 

ii.  13 411,  425,  431 

iii.  10 75 


HEBREWS. 


i.  1,2 
i.  2,  3 
i.  3  . 
i.  5   . 


235, 


333,  362,  422,  434,  458, 
420, 


i.  6,  9 
i.  8,  9 


ii.  4 


266, 


ii.  7,  8 


ii.  9.  10,  14-17 

ii.  10  .  .  . 

iii.  4  .  .  . 

iv.  12  .  .  . 

iv.  15  .  .  . 

V.  8  .  .  .  . 

V.  5-9  .  .  . 

V.  9  .  .  .  . 


425, 


434, 


X.  7,  9  

xi.  1 

xi.  3 

xi.  6 

xii.  2 232, 

xiii.  9 


417 
413 
4U0 
421 
471 
406 
425 
474 
4h3 
4G4 
467 
468 
431 
349 
451 
451 
422 
245 
1S9 
309 
71 
349 
244 
467 
242 


JAMES. 

i.  17 417,479 

ii.  19,  seq 286,  390 

iii.  16-17 417 


I.   PETER.  Vag» 

i.  3 399,  401,  411 

i.  19 4.^.1 

i.  23 349 

ii.  22 198 

iii.  22 466 


iv.  16 122 


i.  1 
i.  1, 


II.   I'ETER. 


431 

433 


ii.  1 72 

iii.  5 349 

iii.  16 228 


I.   JOHX. 


iii.  3,  5  , 
iii.  8  , 
iii.  24    , 


.  9,  10 

.  10  . 

.  13  . 

.  16  . 

1,6  . 

7  .  . 

12  . 

20  . 


10,  11,  219,  220,  367-1 

!     '.     '.     398,  425,'  42' 


10,  11 


JUDE. 


4.33 
451 
106 
483 
419 
268 
443 
483 
75 
419 

!,  371 
94 

!,  432 


242 


3,  19,  23 75 

4 219,  433 

20 399 

RRVELATIOM. 

i.  8 433 

iii.  12 417 

iii.  21 468 

iv.  11 472 

V.  9 471 

V.  9,  10,  12 472 

V.  12,  13 406 

V.  18 400 

xi.  17 28 


493 


n.  — EARLY   CHRISTIAN  WRITERS  REFERRED  TO. 


Arius pp.  62,  86 

Athiinasius 4,  62,  251,  253,  269,  273,  359 

Augustine 87, 152,  252,  326,  329 

Baniiibas 195 

Bedii  or  Beds 31 

Boethius 280 

Chrysostom 859,  360 

Celestius 105 

Cyril  of  Alexandria 812 

Gregory  Nazianzen    .•••••••••  234 

Gregory  Nyssen 287,288,312 

Hilary 312 

Ignatius  ....••••..•*.      195 

Irenseus      ....*•••••••  261 

Jerotne    .....•••..**       831, 440 

John  Philoponos 812 

Justin  Martyr         ....«•••«••      342 

Origan 261, 359 

Pelagius 105 

Polycarp 195 

RuSnu3 261 

Sabellius 4,304-5,306 

Tertullian 261,  320 

Theophilua  )f  Antiooh ...  332 


43 


494 


m.  —  TRINITARIANS  QUOTED   OR  REFERRED  TO.* 


The  letter  (r.)  denotes  that  the  authors  in  the  pages  indicated  are  not  quoted, 
but  referred  to. 


Abbott,  Jacob        . 
Adam,  Robert,  B.A.  . 
Akenside.  Mark 
Allix,  Peter,  D.D.      . 
Anselm,  Archbishop 
Armiuius,  James 
Arnold,  Thomas,  D.D. 


Ascusnage 
Ashwell,  Georfje     . 
Atterbury,  Bishop 
Aubrey,  John,  Esq. 


50 


.     64, 142,  144,  155,  159,  233,  448,  452,  468 

102 

481  (motto) 

843  (r.),  344  (r.) 

812 

279 

61,  76,  82,  118,  150,  168,  175,  187  (r.),  192,  204 
255,  261,  313,  328,  863,  460. 

812 

87 

368 

88  (r.) 


B. 

Bacon,  Lord        .       89  (r.),  131  (motto),  182, 142  (r.),  149, 153,  180,  208  (r.) 
318,  319,  360  (motto). 

Bailey,  Philip  James,  Esq 25,125,143,250.    (Mottoes.) 

Balmer,  Robert,  D.D 45,  47  (r),  64  (r.),  65,  82,  134 

Barnes,  Albert 249 

Barrow,  Isaac,  D.D.,  F.R.S.       .        .        .      230,  260,  280,  289,  312,  314,  319 

Barrows,  E.  P.,  M.A 445 

Basna^e,  James  ..........  335 

Bathurst,  Bishop 113 

Baxter,  Richard  .  85,  48,  49  (r.),  55,  56,  67,  73,  77,  80,  126,  131  (motto), 
133,  139,  143,  155,  158,  162,  172,  177,  200,  206,  231 
248  (motto),  260,  312,  314,  482. 

Beattie,  James,  LL.D 230 

Beausobre,  Isaac  de 347  (r.),  470 

Beecher,  Edward,  D.D 105,  128,  153,  164,  170,  216 

Bellarmiiie,  Cardinal 834,  376  (r.) 

Bengei,  John  Albert 218  (r.) 

Bennet,  Bishop Ill 


•  We  intend  to  give,  at  the  close  of  our  last  volume,  a  complete  list  of  the  book* 
fnuted,  and  the  uditiiuB  used;  with  some  purticuluni  respecting  the  authors. 


INDEX  OF   TRINITARIANS.  49.') 

Bennet,  Thomas,  D.D 363 

Bentley,  Richard,  D.D 185  (motto) 

Beveridge,  Bishop 314,  320,  339,  3ti7 

Bez;i,  Theodore 193  (r.),  433  (/•.) 

Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Writers  in  the 161 

Bin/jham,  Joseph 312 

Blayney,  Benjamin,  D.D 185 

Blomfield,  Bishop 343 

Bloomfield,  Samuel  Thomas,  D.D.,  F.S.A.    .        .         215  (r.),  411,  429,  432 

Bond,  T.  E.,  jun 31,  136 

Boothroyd,  Benjamin,  LL.D 193  (r.),  420 

Brentius,  or  Brentzen,  John 438 

Bretschneider,  C.  T.,  Father  of 480  (r.) 

Brewster,  Sir  David 119  (?•.) 

Brougham,  Lord 119,  120  (r.) 

Browne,  Sir  Thomas 820,  331  (motto) 

Browne,  John,  M.A 340 

Bull,  Bishop     .      4  (r.),  91  (r.),  270  (r.),  286  (r.),  2i  8  (r.),  312,  314  (r.),  394 
395-6  (r.),  411  (r.),  485. 

Bunscn,  Chevalier 324  (motto) 

Burgess,  Bishop 186 

Burke,  Edmund 94  (r.) 

Burnet,  Bishop  .        .        .91,  101,  180,  200,  251  (r.),  335,  374  (motto),  378 
385  (r.),  469,  483. 

Burton,  Edward,  D.D 254,342,346 

Bushnell,  Horace,  D.D.      .  85,  184, 242,  262,  293,  301,  307,  810  (r.),  313,  314 
337,  379,  382,  412  (r.),  457  (r.),  463. 

Butler,  Bishop 95  (r.) 

Butler,  Charles,  Esq 116,  156 

Butler,  Samuel 67  (motto) 

Byrth,  Thomas,  D.D.,  F.S.A 103 

C. 

Calixt,  or  Calixtus,  George 336  (?•.),  340  (r.) 

Calmet,  Augustin 360  (r.),  425 

Calvin,  John        .        39  (r.),  62  (r.),  131  (r.),  145  (r.),  182  (r.),  193  (r.),  213 

251  (r.),  267,  278,  300,  301,  302,  312,  314  (r.),  331 

397,  398  (r.). 
Campbell,  George,  D.D.        .     27,  28  (r.),  57,  68,  74,  146,  154, 178,  187  (r.), 

237,  245,  248,  327,  339,  443,  470. 

Campbell,  Lord 119-20 

Canus,  or  Cano,  Melchior 366 

Cape'i'iXis,  or  Capel,  Lewis 847  (r.) 

Carlile,  James 274,  371,  381,  398,  445 

Chace,  George  L,  LL.D 130,  171 

Chalmers,  Alexander,  F.S.  \.,  Esq ...89 


496 


INDEX   OF   TUIXITARIANS. 


Chalmers,  Thomas,  D.D.,  LL.D.     .    30,  47  (r.),  71,  81,  89,  114,  141,  147,  159 

362  (motto),  371,  373,  452,  459. 

Chillnigworth,  "  the  immortal  " 88  (r.) 

Christiau  Observer,  Writers  in  the 206,  211 

Christian  I'sahnist 438  (motto) 

Christian  Huview,  Writers  in  the 98,  99,  480 

Chnrch  Review,  Writers  in  the 130,  176 

Clarendon,  Lord 88 

Clarii,  D.  W.,  D.D 276,  311 

Clarke,  Adam,  LL.D.,  F.S.A.         ....  174,  182,  421,  433,  439 

Clerc,  John  Le    .        .        .  68,  108,  120  (r.),  140,  153,  156,  267,  314,  321,  332 

347  (r.),  385  (r.). 

Cochlaeus,  John 331 

■Coleridge,  Samuel  Taylor  .    74,  81, 92  (r.),  108  (motto),  116, 149, 162, 187  (r.) 

191,  198  (r.),  203,  208,  224,  234,  240,  261,  270 

282  (r.),  287,  295,  296  (r.),  314,  317,  320  (r.) 

324,  343,  300,  382  (r.). 

Comings,  Prebendary 28 

Congregational  Magazine,  Writers  in  the 402-5 

Conybeare,  John  Josias 237 

Conybeare,  W.  D.,  M.A..  F.R.S 894  (r.) 

Coppenstein,  John  Andrew 374 

Cowper,  William 217, 239.    (Mottoes.) 

Cox,  Francis  Augustus,  D.D.,  LL.D 63,  134 

Crabbe,  George,  LL.B 76  (motto) 

Crusius 480  (r.) 

Cudworth,  Ralph,  D.D.      .        .  84,  231,  251,  264,  281,  812,  384,  395  (r.) 


Daneau,  Lambert  .        .        . 
Daubuz,  Charles,  JLA.      . 
Davenant,  Sir  William  . 
Davidson,  Samuel,  D.D.,  LL.D 
Dawson,  Benjamin,  LL.D.     . 
I)e  Quincey,  Thomas 
Diodati,  John  .        .        . 

Doddridge,  Philip,  D.D.     . 
Doderlein,  John  Christopher,  D.D, 
Donne,  John,  D.D.     .        .        . 
Dorner,  J.  A.,  D.D. 
Dryden,  .John     .... 
Dublin  Review,  Writer  in  the 
Durand,  William 
Durell,  David,  D.D. 
Dwight,  Timothy,  S.T.D.,  LL.D 


179, 


.      831 

471 

257  (motto) 

217,  218,  219,  333,  430,  454 

286,  398,  414,  418,  451 

92,  197,  213  (motto) 

193  (r.) 


92, 


109  (r.),  813,  335,  385 

836,  347  (r.) 

234 

.       845 

.      877  (motto) 

.      376 

400 

187  (r.) 

.    313,  327,  387,  447 


INDEX  OF  TRINITARIANS.  497 


£. 
Eccris  or  Eck,  John •        .        .        .        .      374 

Eclectic  Review,  Writers  in  the        ...        .        98,  100,  185  (motto) 

Edwards,  Bela  Bates 31,  38,  136,  241 

Edwards,  John,  D.D 3^6 

Edwards,  Jonathan 443,  480  (r.),  486 

Emmons,  Nathanael,  D.D.  .    272,  291,  293-4  (r.),  313,  314,  400,  401,  448 

Erasmus,  Desiderius 235,  333  (r.),  360  (r.),  3fi-j,  426 

Ernesti,  John  Augustus,  D.D 219,  221 

Erslviiie,  Thomas,  Esq 223 

Ess,  Leander  Van 80  (r.) 

Evelyn,  John,  Esq.,  F.R.S 312,  351,  377 

F. 

Faber      .  * 317  (r.) 

Field.  Richard,  D.D .        .374  (motto) 

Flatt,  John  Frederick 353,  390,  420 

Fowler,  Bishop 312,  395 

French,  a  Catholic  Barrister         .       • 117 

Galatin,  Peter    ...,,, 334  (r.; 

Gasparin,  Count  Ag6nor  de  .        .        .        ,       199,  205-6  (r.),  210  (»-.),  215 

Gastrell,  Bishop 312 

Gausseii,  L.    .        .        .        • 198  (;•.) 

Gell,  Robert,  D.D 431 

Genebrard,  Gilbert 312 

Gerard,  Gilbert,  D.D 219,  220,  223  (r.),  226 

Gibson,  Bishop 10& 

Goodwin,  Thomas,  D.D 334,  401 

Gordoiiius  HunliBius,  or  James  Gordon 376  (r.) 

Gretser,  James 37C 

Griesbach,  John  James,  D.D.         .      185,  187,  215,  218,  433.     (Referred  to.) 
Grotius,  Hugo    .        .        .    120  (r.),  314  (r.),  347  (r.),  385  (r.),  425  (r.),  426 

Gueiither 330 

Gurney,  .Joseph  John         ..••.....  43" 

Guthrie,  Dr 98 


H. 

Hackspan,  Theodore  .....••..  377 

Hageiibach,  Karl  (Charles)  Rudolph,  D.D 2H2 

Hale,  Sir  Matthew 76,  100,  119  (r.),  234 

Hales,  "  the  ever-memorable "       .......         88  (r.) 

42* 


498  INDEX  OF  TRINITARIANS. 

Hall,  Bishop 89 

Hull,  Robert,  M.A.    .      42,  50,  61,  70,  80,  94,  128,  134,  146,  156,  158,  173,  181 
237,  314,  328,  378,  387,  436,  443,  486. 

Hampden,  Bishop,  D.D 118, 150,  225,  329,  365,  370 

Hare,  Bishop •        .        .        .        .  67,  91 

Hare,  Julius  Charles,  M.A 135,  169,  175,  215,  355 

Haven,  Joseph,  jun 295,  300,  313,  373,  391,  413,  425 

Hawkins,  William,  M.A 353,  399 

Herbert,  George 227  (motto) 

Hewlett,  John,  B.D 417 

Hey,  John,  D.D 110,  217,  322,  333  (?•.),  381 

Hieronymus  k  Hyacintho 374 

Hill,  George,  D.D.,  F.R.S.E 413,  483 

Hinds,  Bishop 194,  204,  210 

Hoffman.  Andrew  Theophilus  (Andreas  Gottlieb),  D.D.       .        .        .      342 

Holden,  George,  M.A 266 

Hooker,  Richard,  M.A 172  (motto),  314  (r.),  367,  392 

Hopkins,  Samuel,  D.D 277,  288,  290,  313 

Home,  Thomas  Hartwell,  B.D.    80, 176, 318, 219,  222,  223,  225,  391,  400,  415 

Horsley,  Bishop 237,  313,  309,  446  (motto) 

Hosius,  Cardinal 374 

Howe,  John,  A.M 283,  284  (r.),  286,  309,  312,  385  (r.) 

Hughes,  James 323 

Hugh  de  St.  Cher 400 

Huntingford,  Bishop 313, 396 

Hurd,  Bishop 821,  439 

J. 

James,  John  Angell 32,  46,  47,  83 

Jeffrey,  Lord 104 

Jenyns,  Soame,  Esq 313,  321 

Johnson,  H.  M 380 

Johnson,  Samuel,  LL.D 37,  231 

Johnstone,  John,  M.D.,  F.R.S 96  (r.),  96  (r.) 

Jones,  William,  of  Nayland,  M.A.,  F.R.S.         .        ...        .288  (r.),  313 

Tones,  William,  M.A.,  a  Baptist  writer 115 

E. 

Kebb 48  (motto) 

King,  David 47  (r.) 

King,  Sir  Peter 261 

Knapp,  George  Christian,  D.D.     .   232,  249,  254,  282,  313,  340.  348,  390,  420 

427,  435,  441,  451,  467,  479,  482,  484. 

Knox,  John 196  (r.) 

Knox.  Vicesimus.  D.D 37,  42,  59,  69,  80,  93,  111,  141 


INDEX  OF   TRII^ITARIANS.  499 

L. 

Latermann,  John,  D.D 836  (r.) 

Laud,  Archbishop 177    183  (r.) 

Laurence,  Archbishop .        .        .         .341 

Leibnitz,  Godfrey  William  de 312 

Leighton,  Archbishop,  D.D 53,  384 

Lightlbot,  John 45-3 

timborch,  Philip    .         .        .        .  172,  250,  266,  332,  417,  419,  471,  477,  4H 

Lindsly,  Piiilip 104 

Longley,  Bishop 354,  361,  413 

Lopez,  Gregory  .        .        . 78  (;•.) 

Lowth,  Bishop 99  (r.),  134,  185,  427 

Lowth,  William,  B.D 470 

Luciis,  Francis;  or,  Lucas  Brugensis 334 

Liicke,  Frederick,  or  Godfrey  Charles  Frederick,  D.D.   .        .        .  428 

Luther,  Martin     .      62  (r.),  131,  145  (j-.),  182  (r.),  196  (»\),  205  (r.),  209  (r.) 
324,  331. 

M. 

McAll,  Robert  Stephens,  LL.D 74,  164 

Mackniglit,  James,  D.D .        186,  429,  433,  486 

Maclaine,  Archibald,  D.D 86,  327,  332 

Magee,  Archbishop         ....  95,  97,  102,  112.     (Referred  to.) 

Magoon,  E.  L.     .         .         .       33,  38,  64,  84,  129,  137,  170,  184,  233,  437,  444 

Maltby,  Bishop 245,  352,  364,  446 

Mangey,  Thomas,  LL.D.,  D.D 339,  352 

Manton,  Thomas,  D.D 319,  399 

Maresius,  or  De  Marets,  Samuel 411  (r.) 

Marsh,  Bishop 186 

Masetnus,  James 366,  375 

Mason 458  (motto) 

Maurice,  Frederick  Denison,  M.A.    .       107,  205,  255,  337,  410,  411  (r.),  462 

Mayer,  John,  D.D 427 

Mayer,  Lewis,  D.D 423 

Melancthon,  Philip  .         .         .     126,  182  (r.),  280,  288  (r.),  339,  369  (r.) 

Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  Writer  in  the 99 

Michaelis,  John  David    .         .    193  (r.),  200,  207,  218,  219,  251,  346,  353,  358 

428,  477. 

Miller,  Samuel,  D.D 313,  351  (motto) 

Milman,  Henry  Hart 86,  240,  246,  313,  453,  454,  460 

Milner,  John,  D.D.,  F.S.A 375 

Milner,  Joseph,  B.A 193  (r.) 

More,  Henry,  D.D.,  F.R.3 312,  314  (r.),  317  (motto) 

Morus.  Samuel  Frederick  Nathaniel,  D.D.  .  .  .  225,  280,  288  (r.) 
Mosheim,  John  Laurence  von  ....  87,  101,  239,  245,  332  (r.) 
Murdock,  James,  D.D 260,  261,  263 


600  INDKX   OF.TUINITARUNS. 


N. 
Neander,  Augustus,  or  John  Augustus  William,  D.D.    .      198  (r.),  246,  318 

344,  363,  372,  432,  436,  456 

Needham 419  (inotto) 

Newconie,  Archbishop 97  (r.),  187  (>:),  431 

New  Enghmder,  Writers  in  the 105,  121,  180 

Newton,  John 31  (r.J 

Newman,  Jolin  Henry,  M.A 369 

North  British  Review,  Writers  in  the 142,  182,  198 

Nosselt,  John  Augustus,  D.D 419,  426 

Nye,  Philip £14  (r.) 

0. 

Olshausen,  Hermann,  D.D 401,  402  (?•.) 

Orme,  William '.        .   4Q,  63,  186 

Orthodox  Presbyterian,  Writer  in  the       ......  480 

Orton,  Job,  D.D 92 

Ostervald,  John  Frederick 239 

Owen,  John,  D.D 53,  377 

Oxford  or  Anglican  Doctors 353,  371 

Oxford,  Vice-Chancellor  and  Heads  of  Colleges  belonging  to  the 

University  of 286 

P. 

Paley,  William,  D.D 119  (r.),  202,  454 

Park,  Edwards  Amasa,  D.D 136,  256 

Parr,  Samuel,  LL.D.  .         .        29,  .36,  60,  59,  69,  79,  95,  96  (r.),  102,  113,  133 
157,  160,  167,  226,  232,  248,  333. 

Patrick,  Bishop 397  (motto) 

Pearson,  Bisliop  .  261,  265,  314  (r.),  389,  393,  407  (motto),  409,  411  (r.), 

405,  486. 

Penn,  Granville,  Esq 187,215,411,431 

Penn,  James,  B.A 181 

Petavius,  Dionysius;  or,  Denys  Petau 375 

Picus,  John 342  (c.) 

Planck,  Gottlieb  (Theophilus)  Jacob,  D.D 217,  220,  223 

Pond,  Enoch,  D.D 299,  313,  412,  457 

Possevin,  Anthony 374 

Powell,  Ba.len,  M. A.,  F.Il.S.,  F.G.S.         .        .        .     163,215,221.238,387 

Powell,  William  Samuel,  D.D 154,  155,  201,  410 

Prideaux,  Humphrey,  D.D 340 

Pusey,  E.  B.,  D.D 174  (r.),  210 

B. 

Renty,  or  Rent!,  Marquis  de 78  (r.) 

Bidgley,  Thomas,  D.D 278,  814,  378,  385.  390 


INDEX  OF  TRINITARIANS. 


oOl 


Robi-.son,  John 131 

Rosceliu 812  (r.) 

Roseiiinuller,  John  George,  D.D 429 

Kupenus  Tuitiensis        ..•.•....  834(7'.) 


334  (r.) 

334,  347  (r.),  351,  377 

145,  332 

67,  73,  141,  144,  149,  235,  297 

44,  62,  120,  246 

336 


S. 

Salabert,  John    ..... 

S:iImeron,  Alphonso       .... 
Sanderson,  Bishop      .... 

Saurin,  James 

Sawyer,  Leicester  A.  ... 

Sclilegel,  John  Rudolph  .        .        . 

Schleierraacher,  Fredk.  E.  Daniel,  D.D.    198  (r.),  271,  305,  306  (r.),  314  (r.) 

Schleusner,  Jolin  Frederick,  D.D 425,  470 

Schmitz,  Leonhard,  Ph.  D 86 

Schneckenburger,  Matthias,  D.D,  .        .        \        .        .        .        365  (r.) 

Schott,  Henry  Augustus,  D.D 336 

Scotch  Paraphrases,  Writers  of     ...        .  469,  485.    (Mottoes.) 

Scultet,  Abraham,  D.D 469 

Seeker,  Archbishop 326 

Seiler,  George  Frederick,  D.D.  .        .      190,  203,  217,  218,  221,  222,  434 

Selden,  John 71,  132,  213  (motto) 

Shakspeare,  William  .        .        .34,  56,  177,  334,  356,  425.    (Mottoes.) 

Shedd,  William  G.  T 262,  296,  372,  380 

Sherlock,  Thomas,  Bishop  of  London 466,  473 

Sherlock,  William,  D.D.     .     4  (r.),  166,  213,  235,  270  (r.),  282,  283,  284  (r.) 
287  (r.),  308,  312,  314,  325,  362,  378,  409,  443 

Shore,  Sir  John 90  (r.) 

Simon,  Father 345,  346  (r.) 

Simpson,  David,  M.A. 58,  79,  93,  207,  252 

Smalridge,  Bishop 367 

Smith,  John  Pyc,  D.D.  F.R.S.  .        .  97, 103, 187, 190, 193,  205  (r.),  208,  223 

813,  342,  343,  347,  355,  359,  396,  400 
404  (r.),  444,  456,  484. 

Smith,  Sydney,  M.A 37,  80,  151,  240 

South,  Robert,  D.D.  .  4  (r.),  67,  86  (motto),  167,  173,  223,  225,  285,  304,  312 
321,  326,  332,  335,  378,  382  (r.),  384 

Southey,  Robert,  LL.D. 

Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  Writers  in  the 
Spring,  Gardiner,  D.D.,  LL.D.      .        . 
Stanhope,  George,  D.D.     .        .        . 
Steuchus  Eugubinus      .... 

Stevens,  Abel 

Stillingfloet,  Bishop 312 

Storr  &  Flatt 444 


397,  409. 
.  40  (motto) 
.     99,  169 
.  98,  216,  883,  436,  450 
426,  471 
834  (r.) 


Struthers,  Gavin,  D.D. 


39,  47  (r.),  63,  54  (r  ),  66,  71.  76.  148 


602 


INDEX  OF  TRINITARIANS. 


Stuart,  Moses,  M.A. 


Sweetser,  Seth,  D.I). 
Svmonds,  John,  LL.D. 


100,  104,  152,  183,  198,  216,  264,  268,  269,  2T2,  275 
276-7  (r.),  278,  279  (r.),  280  (r.),  289,  292,  298 
299  (r.),  305,  306,  309,  310  (r.),  313,  341  (r., 
342  (r.),  345,  350,  382,  387,  391,  392  (motto),  423 
426,  427  (r.),  429,  430,  431-2  (r.),  468. 
338,  350,  391,  483 

187  (r.),  237 


T. 

Tanner,  Adam        .        .  374  (r.),  376  (r.) 

Taylor,  Bishop  .  72, 77, 100, 138, 165,  245,  250,  315,  317,  324,  366,  374,  401,  438 

Taylor,  Isaac 30,  43,  70,  134,  315 

Theophylact',  Archbishop 440 

Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  Authors  of        .       177,  183 

Tholuck,  Frederick  Augustus  Gottreu,  D.D 198  (r.),  314 

Thomas  k  Kempis  .     * 78  (r.) 

Tillotson,  Archbishop  .  72,  77,  91  (r.),  101,  127,  165,  172,  189,  235,  251 
312,  314,  317  (r.),  320,  324  (motto),  325 
333  (r.),  390,  393,  398,  409,  465. 

Todd,  John,  D.D 861 

Tollner,  John  Theophilus  (Johann  Gottlieb),  D.D 313 

Tomline,  Bishop 254,  333  (r.) 

Tostat,  or  Tostatus,  Bishop 834,  414 

Townsend,  George,  A.M 363 

Tregelles,  Samuel  Prideaux,  LL.D 218 

Trelcatius,  the  Younger 279  (r.) 

Trollope,  William,  M.A. 411  (r.),  440 

Tucker,  John 191  (r.) 

Turner,  D 110 

Turretin 182  (r.) 

U  and  W. 

Ullmann,  Charles,  D.D 447 

Waddington,  George,  M.A 369 

Wake,  Archbishop 26,  78,  127,  140.  145,  162 

Wallis,  John,  D.D 303,  309  (r.),  313 

Warljurton,  Bishop 59  (r.) 

VVanliaw,  Halph,  D.D.         47,  54,  83,  313,  366  (motto),  373  (r.),  381,  432  (r.) 
VVaterland,  Daniel,  D.D  91  (r.),  270  (r.),  286  (r.),  287  (r.),  288  (r.),  290 

295  (r.),  312,  395,  477  (motto),  486. 
Watson,  Bishop  .        ......   69,91,97,110,173,180,258 

Watts,  Isaac 188,234,414,446,464.     (Mottoes.) 

Wesley,  John,  M.A 5,  41,  62  (r.),  78,  91,  167,  173,  213,  251 

Westminster  Divines 177,  234,  273,  381 

Wetst«in,  John  James 120  (r.),  218  (r.) 


INDEX  OF   UNITARIANS. 


503 


D. 


Wette,  De,  William  Martin  Leberecht,  D.D 

Wettenhal,  Bishop 

Whately,  Archbishop  .  4  (r.),  63,  118,  123  (r 
163,  168,  179,  194 
298,  303  (r.),  313, 

Whitakcr,  John,  B.D. 

Whitby,  Daniel,  D.D.    . 

White,  Samuel,  M.A. 

Whitefield,  George,  M.A. 

Wiekus,  or  Wieckus,  James,  D 

Wilberforce,  William,  Esq.    . 

Wilkins,  Bishop  .        . 

Williams,  Joseph    .        .        . 

Williams,  Roger         .        . 

Williams,  William  R.     . 

Winslow,  Governor    .        . 

Winterbotham,  William         . 

Wiseman,  Cardinal    .        . 

Witsius,  Herman,  D.D.  . 

Woods,  Leonard,  jun.,  D.D. 

Wotton,  William,  D.D.  . 

Wright,  William,  LL.D.    . 


193  (r.),  95-6  (r.) 

102 

.),  128,  136,  141,  144,  147,  154 

214,  222,  238,  241,  249,  255 

322,  329,  461. 

.    342  (r.) 

411  (r.),  431  (r.),  439 

427 

26,  78 

.    376  (r.) 

90,  103 

.      -  .        .385  (r.) 

403,  405  (r.) 

.      64  (r.) 

43,  148 

131 

93 

.     196,  318,  333,  358,  365 

366,  377,  394 

.    348  (r.) 

352,  356,  357  (r.) 

.      190  (r.),  222  (r.) 


Young,  Edward,  LL.D. 
Zwingle,  Ulric  .        . 


y  and  Z. 


138  (motto),  165  (motto),  313,  321 
.      182  (r.),  196  (r.) 


IV.  —  UNITARIANS  REFERRED   TO. 


Barbauld,  Mrs 96 

Belsham,  Thomas 95,  97,  99,  207,  354,  360 

Benson,  George,  D.D 115 

Berry,  Charles 95 

Buckminster,  Joseph  Stevens        ........98 

Burnap,  George  W.,  D.D. 105 

Cappe,  Newcome 95 

Carpenter,  Lant,  LL.D 47,  97,  98 

Chandler,  Samuel,  D.D 115 

Channing,  William  Ellery,  D.D 47,  90,  98-9,  104,  105 

Clarke,  Samuel,  D.D 91,  120,  332 

Cogan,  E.    .        .        . 95 

Dewey,  Orville,  D.D lOS 


504 


INDEX  OF  UNITARIANS. 


Disney,  John,  D.D.    . 

Dudith,  Andrew     .         . 

Duke  of  Grafton 

Falkland,  Lord  Viscount 

Field,  William  . 

Firmin,  Thomas     .        . 

Foster,  James,  D.D.  . 

Fratres  I'oloiii  (the  Polish  Brethre 

Hartley,  David,  M.D. 

Jebb,  John,  M.D.    . 

Jones,  Sir  William 

Kippis,  Andrew,  D.D.    . 

Lardner,  Nathaniel,  D.D.  , 

Lindsay,  James,  D.D.     . 

Lindsey,  Theophilus,  M.A, 

Locke,  John  .         .        . 

Milton,  .John 

Newton,  Sir  Isaac  . 

Norton,  Andrews 

Noyes,  George  R.,  D.D. 

Pounds,  John 

Price,  Richard,  D.D.       . 

Priestley,  Joseph,  LL.D. 


n) 


Robberds,  John  Gooch   . 
Sears,  Edmund  H. 
Servetus,  Michael  .        . 
Shepherd,  William,  LL.D. 
Socinus,  Faustus   . 
Socinus,  Lajlius  . 

Sparks,  Jared,  LL.D.     . 
Story,  Judge       .        . 
Taylor,  John,  D.D. 
Wakefield,  Gilbert      . 
Wallace,  Robert      . 
Ware,  Henry,  jun.,  D.D. 
Ware,  Mrs.  Mary  L. 
Whiston,  William       . 
Yiitfts,  James,  M.A.        . 


55,  90,  93 
360,  369 


55, 


90,  91,  92 


45,  89, 
55,  89 


94,  96,  99 


93 

88 
95,  110,  119 


95,  96,  113 

.     55,  90,  91 

115 

95 

92 

.  93,  95,  111 

90 

.       109 

95,  115,  119,  120 

.      112 

92,  93,  95,  360 

91,  119,  120,  123,  356,  386 

.  65,  64,  89,  104,  120 

91,  104,  114,  119,  120,  159 

47,  90,  100,  105 

99 

98 

.  93,  94,  108 

,  104,  107,  111-12,  116,  359 


96 

106 

.  39,  64,  251 

95 

62,  87,  100,  108,  113 

86-7 

.       105 

105 

95,  105 

112 

88 

.       47,  99,  105 

99,  121 

.     91,  120 

96 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01125  3707 


DATE  DUE 


